PERURI PEDA SATHIRAJU Vs. DULAM ADEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is referred to a Bench by our learned brother Seshachelapati, J., as he thought that a question of considerable importance as to the scope of the jurisdiction of civil Courts and to the maintainability of a suit for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage of a potter service inam is involved in this case. The Second Appeal arises out of an action laid by the appellants for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage for a term of 99 years created by them on 6th June, 1938 and for ascertainment of the amount due to the mortgagee after scaling down the debt under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

(2.) The appellants executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 450 on 6th June, 1938 in respect of one acre of wet land and put the respondent in possession of the same Claiming to be entitled to the benefits of section 9-A of the Act, they brought the present suit alleging that they were liable to pay only Rs. 180 being the proportionate amount due under that section. The suit was resisted by the respondent on the pleas that the instrument evidenced only a lease and not a mortgage, that therefore he was entitled to be in possession of the property till the expiry of the period mentioned in the document, that the plaintiffs could not obtain any relief under the Act as the property hypothecated was a potter service inam in which they had no saleable interest and that they were not possessed of any other lands. After the respondent filed the written statement raising these defences, the plaintiffs' request for amendment of the plaint by adding the following paragraph was granted by the trial Court:

(3.) On these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :-