MAHMOODA BEGUM Vs. BADRUNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are taken up for disposal together, as they arise out of the common judgment in O.S.Nos. 301/74 and 215/79, respectively, on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the parties are the same in all the suits and a joint trial is held in all these suits. All the appeals are brought by the defendant. In all the appeals the premises bearing H.No. 22-8-389-1 and 2, situate at Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, is the subject matter. The brief facts in each appeal are stated as under: CCCA No. 149/87:

(2.) This appeal arises out of the judgment in O.S. 301 of 1974, which is asuit for recovery of Rs. 37,820/- towards arrears of rent together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the suit.

(3.) The respondent-plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. She let outthe premises to the appellant under a rental deed dt. 22-2-1971, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,100/-. The appellant, contrary to the terms of the rental deed, sublet the premises andhas been collecting the rents. The appellant committed default in payment of rent and she has paid only Rs. 7,280/-. Claiming an amount of Rs. 37,820/- towards arrears of rent for the period from 1971 to 1974, deducting the amounts paid the suit was brought. The appellant denied that the respondent was the owner of the suit premises. She also denied that the suit premises was let out by the respondent. It is the specific case of the appellant that the respondent, being money lender, has adopted a modus operandi of lending small amounts under pronotes and used to obtain sale deeds as security and towards interest she used to obtain rental deeds from the debtors on the promise to reconvey the property and contemporaneously executing reconveyance deeds. Accordingly the appellant had borrowed small amounts executing sale deeds in respect of certain other items of her property, earlier, in favour of close relations of the respondent, as security and obtained reconveyance agreement. The appellant borrowed the sum of Rs. 8,000/- on 20-9-1969 and another sum of Rs. 12,000/- on 22-9-1969 against the mortgage of the suit premises, at exhorbitant rates of interest. She executed ostensible sale deed towards the aggregated sum of Rs. 20,000/-, only towards security for due repayment. On the same date an agreement of reconveyance was executed by the respondent to reconvey the property on repayment of the loan amount within three years. Initially the rental deed for Rs. 375/- p.m. was executed towards interest on 24-9-1969 at the rate of Rs. 1.75% p.m. Another sum of Rs. 20,000/- was borrowed on a pronote, furnishing the same house as security. Again on 7-11-1969 a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was borrowed on another pronote and the same house is mortgaged. Thus a total sum of Rs. 55,000 was obtained as loan on security of the suit premises. Another agreement of reconveyance was executed on 7-11-1969 substituting it for the original reconveyance agreement dated 22-9-1969. On 22-2-1971, a fresh rental deed for Rs. 1,100/- was executed in respect of the suit house representing the interest at Rs. 2% p.m. on Rs. 55,000/-. The appellant leased out the house in November, 1971, to the C.T.O. Office and she was collecting the rents being the owner of the house. Meanwhile, the respondent herself was collecting the rents from the C.T.O. Office towards interest. The respondent was neither the owner nor possessor of the suit premises and the transaction between the parties is in the nature of mortgage and the document though executed in the form of a sale deed, it is intended to be a mortgage deed, and the sale deed was executed as such as the respondent promised to reconvey the property. The respondent filed rejoinder denying the allegations made in the written statement. The execution of the reconveyance deed was denied as false and even if true unenforceable.