YADAVA KAMALABAI Vs. BIJJAM VENKATA SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. 350 of 2002, on the file of the PrincipalJunior Civil Judge, Prodduturu is the petitioner. She filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest, from the respondent. The trial of the suit commenced. She sought to rely upon a document dated 4-5-2001 in her evidence. The respondent raised an objection as to its admissibility, on the ground that it evidences an usufructuary mortgage. Through its order dated 29-12-2003 the trial court sustained the objection and refused to receive the document in evidence. Hence, this revision.

(2.) Sri A.V.S. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the document in question, had only enabled the petitioner to remain in the said premises, in lieu of payment of interest, on the amount of Rs.70,000/- advanced by her and as such it cannot be treated as a transaction of usufructuary mortgage. He further submits that even otherwise, the document could have been received in evidence for collateral purposes.

(3.) Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the document in question not only provided for adjustment of rent of the building towards the interest payable on the amount, but also directed that the possession of the premises shall be retained, till the amount is repaid, and in that view of the matter, it answers the description of a deed of usufructuary mortgage.