YARRAM KRISHNA RAO Vs. MUTTAMALLA NARSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Second Appeals are listed before us on a reference being made by learned single Judge for an authoritative pronouncement on the questions formulated, which are extracted hereunder:

(2.) BACKGROUND facts of the case leading to filing of these two Second Appeals, in brief, are: Smt. Muttamalla Narasamma, wife of Lingaiah, was the owner of premises bearing Nos. 6-4-61 and 6-4-62 situated at bholakpur, Secunderabad. She executed a sale deed dated 26-03-1969 in favour of yerram Narayana, who died and survived by Yerram Krishna Rao. According to muttamalla Narasamma, she borrowed rs. 1,000/- from late Yerram Narayana and executed a sale deed as a security for the loan. She claims to be in possession of the property despite executing a sale deed in favour of Yerram Narayana. According to her, she has been paying interest at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month on the amount lent by Yerram Narayana. When the wife and son of late Yerram Narayana threatened to dispossess her from the suit house, she expressed her willingness to repay the loan amount and requested them to redeem the mortgage. It is also her case that late Yerram narayana acknowledged the interest received by him in a notebook maintained by her. After the death of Yerram Narayana, his son yerram Krishna Rao received the interest on the principal amount of Rs. 1,000/- and acknowledged in a notebook maintained by her. Since few days prior to the filling of the suit, Yerram Krishna Rao refused to acknowledge the receipt of interest. That late Yerram Narayana was doing money lending business and was obtaining sale deeds as a security for repayment of the amounts and after repayment of the amounts, he used to reconvey the same. Since Yerram Krishna Rao refused to receive the principal amount of Rs. 1,000/- with interest thereon and redeem the property, she filed the suit being O. S. No. 2777 of 1979 on the file of I Assistant Judge, City civil Court, Secunderabad, for redemption. The reliefs sought for in the said suit read as hereunder:

(3.) SMT. Samala Earamma filed a suit being O. S. No. 540 of 1980 on the file of i Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad, alleging inter alia that she purchased the suit schedule house under an agreement of sale dated 28-05-1979 from yerram Krishna Rao. The suit schedule house is adjacent to the house owned by her. She was put in possession of the house bearing NO. 6-4-61 on 28-05-1979. According to her, her vendor promised to deliver possession of the house bearing No. 6-4-62 after the disposal of C. C. No. 90 of 1979 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, City criminal Courts, Secunderabad. Whileso, smt. Muttamalla Narasamma trespassed into the house on 18-7-1979 and occupied it. She filed a police complaint. There being no action on her complaint, she filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, City criminal Courts, Secunderabad, on 15-09-1979 and the learned Metropolitan magistrate took the case on file as C. C. No. 1759 of 1979. The defendants in O. S. No. 540 of 1980 are Yerram Krishna Rao and Smt. Muttamalla Narasamma. For the sake of clarity, we mention here that smt. Muttamalla Narasamma is the plaintiff and Yerram Krishna Rao is the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 2777 of 1979. Subsequently, samala Earamma, who is the plaintiff in o. S. No. 540 of 1980, came to be impleaded as 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 2777 of 1979 as per orders in I. A. No. 491 of 1981, dated 30-06-1981. The trial Court framed the following issues for trial. The issues framed in O. S. No. 2777 of 1979 are: (1) Is the suit document dated 26-03-1979 mortgage deed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant's father? (2) Is the defendant not the owner of house under the documents dated 26-03-1969 executed by the plaintiff? (3) Is the plaintiff entitled to redemption of the mortgage claim in the suit? (4) To what relief? the issues framed in O. S. No. 540 of 1980 are: (1) Whether the plaintiff (D-2) is entitled for possession of the suit schedule mentioned property? (2) Whether the plaintiff (D-2) is entitled for possession of the suit schedule mentioned property? (3) To what relief? both the suits came to be clubbed and evidence came to be recorded in O. S. No. 2777 of 1979. For the sake of convenience, Smt. Muttamalla Narasamma, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, and whereas Yerram Krishna Rao and Samala earamma as the defendants 1 and 2 respectively. On behalf of the plaintiff, she examined 4 witnesses and marked 25 documents and whereas the defendants examined 3 witnesses and marked 19 documents. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 26-03-1969 was executed as security for the loan availed by the plaintiff in favour of late yerram Narayana. For better understanding, we may refer the relevant portion of the finding recorded by the trial Court and it is thus: