KARNAM KANDASAMI PILLAI Vs. CHINNABBA ALIAS SUBBAROYA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. Plaintiff s father and three others mortgaged the suit lands and certain other properties to defendant in 1871. In 1885 an arrangement was made between the mortgagors and mortgagee by which the latter was to give up the other lands and retain possession of the suit lands in full ownership in satisfaction of the mortgage debt and certain other debts. This arrangement was given effect to, the other lands were relinquished and defendant has remained in enjoyment of the suit lands ever since. Plaintiff now sues to redeem his own share of the suit lands.

(2.) The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that "the suit lands were conveyed to defendant by an oral sale more than 30 years ago and that defendant has been in possession all this time as owner." The District Judge on appeal found the above facts (which were not seriously contested) to be true and held that defendant had been holding as owner for more than twelve years. He rejected the chief argument addressed to him that these lands being service inam were inalienable and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Before us, no argument was based on the service character of the lands, but it was contended that the transaction of 1885 was of the nature of an oral sale, that as such it was invalid and could not be proved, that the defendants possession, must be treated as that of a mortgagee and that plaintiff was entitled to redeem.