IRADAIA SEETHARAMAIAH Vs. PENURNATCHA BANGARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Juge, Eluru dt. 17th April 1961 by which the suit instituted by the appellant Plaintiff i- e.,O. S. No. 7 of 1960 for redemption of the mortgage deed dated 19-7-1943 executed by him in favour of the 1st defendant for a sum of Rs .15,000/- in respect of the plaint A and B Schedule properties, was dismissed.

(2.) The only question that arises in this appeal for consideration is whether the suit document is a mortgage by conditional sale or a condition of repurchase.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of this appeal in brief are : The plaintiff purchased the suit A and B schedule lands and other lands comprising an extent of Ac. 584-00 cents from one Karri Seethayarnma under the sale deed Ex: A-2 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- subject to the payment of arrears of cists of about Rs. 10,000/- then due to the Zamindar of Mathanagudem and Vegavaram. At the time of purchase, there was a litigation between the vendor Karri Seethayamma and the Zamindar and so under the terms of Ex. A-2 it was agreed that the appellant herein should obtain possession without recourse to the vendor. The appellant spent huge amounts of money for the recovery of the possession of the suit lands in various litigations with the Zamindars and ultimately he compromised with the Zamindar of Vegavaram by selling to him a part of the land comprising an extent of Ac. 119-17 cts., of Vegavaram land in discharge of arrears of cists under the original sale deed (Ex. A-8). The Zamindar thereafter granted a patta to an extent of Ac. 95-15 cts. of lands described in plaint A schedule. The appellant then executed a release deed (Ex, A-10) dated April 19, 1934 for Acs. 158-32 cts., valued at Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the Zamindar of Mathanagudem. He also lost possession of about 30 acres of land in pursuance of a decree in ejectment obtained by the Zamindar of Mathanagudem. He was then left with an extent of Acs. 158-47 cts , in Mathanagudem described in the plaint B schedule. The appellant thus became the owner of Plaint A & B Schedule properties.