JEEVATARHINAM Vs. MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2000 passed in A.S.No.76 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.09.1998 made in O.S.No.190 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

(2.) THE defendant before the trial court is the appellant herein. THE suit was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs before the trial court, seeking a decree for redemption of usufructory mortgage, dated 25.09.1974 and the suit was decreed as prayed for.

(3.) AND it is hereby ordered and decreed that if the amount realised by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the term of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance: and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit. ". 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the trial court, the defendant in the suit preferred appeal. The first appellate court, by its Judgment and Decree, dated 31.07.2000 made in A.S.No.76 of 1999, confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal without costs. Aggrieved by which, this second appeal has been preferred. 5. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law :"1. Whether the learned appellate Judge was right in casting the burden of proof on the appellant to show that the respondents have lost their title to the property?. 2. Whether the lower appellate court was right in not drawing an adverse inference against the respondents for non-production of the partition deed, dated 03.02.1988?".