SERAJUDDIN Vs. ABDUL KHALIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge No. 1, Manipur East, in Original Suit No. 67/86/14/87/7/89/122/90/83/90, this Appeal was presented by Md. Serajuddin, who is the defendant in the Original Suit.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are as follows: The respondents/plaintiffs, (Plaintiff No. 2, an insane, being represented by his younger brother plaintiff No. 1) instituted the suit in question for a decree of redemption of the Southern half of the land, hereinafter called the 'Suit-land', pertaining to Dag No. 15/2284, Patta No. 181 measuring 0.062 acre in total area situated under Imphal Municipality, M.G. Avenue. The entire Dag stands in the name of plaintiffs and defendent jointly and northern half belongs to the defendent. The plaintiffs state that in the early part of January 1984 plaintiff No. 1 (respondent No. 1 before this court) being in need of money for his contract work approached the defendant (appellant before this court) who is husband of the plaintiffs' sister's daughter for borrowing the money. The defendant taking the advantage of helplessness of the plaintiff induced the plaintiff No. 1 to agree to borrow a sum of Rs. 90,000/- only on his execution of two registered deeds dated 17-1-1984 of usufructuary mortgage in respect of the suit land coupled with an agreement for sale of the land in case he fails to repay the loan within a period of four months. That plaintiff No. 1 before signing the mortgage deeds was taken to Sangam Restaurant being accompanied by two persons from Sub-Registrar's office and another and handed over the drafts of the deeds and after going through them he discovered some mistakes in the recitals of the deeds in so far describing plaintiff No. 2 as 'a minor younger brother' instead of 'insane elder brother' to be represented by next friend and raised objections but considering the fact that parties are closely related and the mistakes will not affect the validity of the deed as assured by the defendant the mistake was over-looked. That on 10-5-1984 even before the expiry of the stipulated period of four months the defendant filed an application, registered as Mutation case No. 307 of 1984, for mutation of the suit land in his name before the Court of SDC, Imphal West (C), Manipur, and the prayer was granted by the learned SDC vide his order dated 22-5-1984. The said order of SDC was upheld by the.SDO and the DC, Imphal, but was set aside by the learned Revenue Tribunal on 18-2-1985. Against the order of the Revenue Tribunal defendant filed a writ petition, being Civil Rule No. 62/85, before the High Court, and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order directing the mutation to continue till disposal of petition etc.

(3.) That on 5-7-1986 defendant started constructions over the suit land defying his objection and for that plaintiff instituted another suit, O.S. No. 54 of 1986, with prayer for injunction. Plaintiff asked for redemption of suit land by tendering the mortgage money of Rs. 90,000/- and demanding restoration of possession but defendant was refusing to do so. Hence the Suit. It is in the evidence that plaintiff No. 2 had since died.