BODDU RAMULU Vs. GOKARLA RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant No. 1 has come in appeal against a confirming judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur in a suit for redemption of mortgage and for mesne profits.

(2.) ONE Kamaya was the admitted owner of the property in suit. The plaintiffs are his heirs. The genealogy appended below would show the relationship of the plaintiffs inter se and their relationship with Kamaya. In 1942 Kamaya is alleged to have mortgaged the suit property measuring 37 decimals, to defendant No. 1 to secure a loan of Rs. 100/-. The mortgage is said to be usufructuary and it was stipulated that the usufructs should be enjoyed for liquidation of the loan and the cist had to be paid out of it. It is alleged that in 1962, plaintiff No. 1 offered repayment of the loan and demanded release of the land and delivery of possession. It was refused and thereupon the suit has been filed.

(3.) THE weight of authority seems to be in support of the proposition that on the basis of an oral mortgage, a suit for redemption is not maintainable.