RUCKMANGATHAN Vs. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed under Art. 227 of the constitution of India, by the plaintiff in O. S. 826 of 1985, on the file of district Munsif's court, Poonamallee. Petitioner herein filed the suit to direct the respondent to deliver possession of the suit property and for consequential reliefs. In the plaint, it is alleged that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of Dharmalinga Naicker and his sons and they were residing in that property. For the purpose of meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter, dharmalinga Naicker wantedto raise loan, and for the said purpose, he approached the defendant, who is a money lender. He wanted a sum of Rs. 3,250. Since the defendant insisted on security and also wanted to enjoy the property in lieu of interest, possession was handed over to him. It is said that possession of the defendant is only as a charge-holder, and he was the mortgagee for all purposes. Since the defendant was having possession and was enjoying the property for the past more than eight years, if the amount is calculated as per Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, only a sum of Rs. 650 is payable and the balance must be treated to have been discharged in view of the appropriation of the income. A lawyer's notice was issued asking the defendant to surrender possession, which was not complied with. The suit was, therefore, filed for the reliefs stated above.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the respondent herein, he said that for meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter, late dharmalinga Naicker executed a sale deed though it was unstamped or unregistered. It is his case that pursuant to that document, he obtained possession and he is in possession as owner. He also effected improvements to the suit property. It is his case that his possession as mortgagee as alleged by plaintiff is not true, and the sale was executed for valuable consideration, and for family necessity. He further says that the suit filed for recovery of possession without a prayer for setting aside the sale is not maintainable. He also pleaded that the age of the plaintiff is wrongly stated.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent submitted that subsequent to this Order, the document was put to the witness and the same was marked subject to objection, and it was at that stage, the revision was filed. He further contended that only judgment is to be pronounced and the entire arguments are over, and at this stage, if the court interferes in the discretionary order, the same will affect the respondent adversely and will cause him great hardship.