ANTHONY CHELLAPPA Vs. VICTORIA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant.

(2.) Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for redemption and for future profits. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Subbaiah Naidu who is P.W. 2 in the suit. There were some mortgages in respect of the suit property and the defendant is the last mortgagee in respect of the suit property on 17.3.1984 under a sale deed Ex. A-5 subject to the mortgage. The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property executed by her vendor and deposited the mortgage amount in the trial court. The defendant filed a counter claim stating that he had made certain improvements and the total cost of the improvements is Rs. 6,100 which the plaintiff is liable to pay as she is benefteiary of the suit property as the purchaser from the mortgagor P.W. 2 The plaintiff did not file any counter claim

(3.) The trial Judge raised the necessary issues and after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties decreed the suit for redemption and also allowed the counter claim on the ground that no written statement has been filed by the plaintiff rejecting the objections of the defendant.