HAJIRA BEEVI Vs. S CHANDRAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioners, subsequent to the filing of the appeal there was a compromise entered into between the respondent 1 and respondent 2 herein viz. , S. Chandrakumar and Mrs. Sugnaya Kumar (Respondents 2 and 3 in A. S. No. 93 of 2002), who are the subsequent purchasers of the plaint schedule property from the sole defendant R. Saraswathi (R1 in A. S. No. 93 of 2002) who is now no more. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioners, this Court while delivering the judgment on 18. 1. 2007 on the basis of the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and R1 and R2 herein (R2 and R3 in A. S. No. 93 of 2002) has allowed the appeal in part in terms of the compromise memo recorded against R1 and R2 herein (R2 and R3 in A. S. No. 93 of 2002) and dismissed the appeal in other respects.

(2.) THE grievance of the learned counsel for the review petitioners, is that the sole defendant had executed the mortgage deed by deposit of title deeds under Ex. A. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs on 30. 04. 1981, but while delivering the judgment on 18. 01. 2007 this fact was omitted to be considered by this Court.

(3.) THE well settled proposition of law is "once a mortgage is always a mortgage". The judgment passed by this Court in A. S. No. 93 of 2002 is subject to the right of assignment of mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs under Ex. A. 3. With this observation, this review application is disposed of. No costs.