PACHIPENTA LAKSHMI NAIDU Vs. SOMAHANTI GUNNAMMA ALIAS CHINNAMMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the ninth defendant, a puisne mortgagee, against the decree for sale passed in a prior mortgagee's suit. The prior mortgagee had two mortgages in his favour, Ex. A, a usufructuary mortgage of 1 September, 1891 and Ex. B, a simple mortgage of 4th September, 1897. In respect of Ex. A, the appellant contends that on its true construction, the mortgagee is bound to account for all the income from the properties of which he was put in possession, subject to a deduction of interest at 9 per cent, per annum on the mortgage amount and one or two other items of charges mentioned in the document. He insists that if accounts are taken on this footing it would be found that the mortgagee has realised the whole amount due to him under the mortgages. With reference to Ex. B, the appellant raises a plea of limitation. Incidentally, his learned Counsel also suggested the possibility of a claim for subrogation in respect of a fraction of the amount included in the mortgage in favour of the appellant, but he realised that in view of certain circumstances this claim could not be usefully pressed. It is therefore unnecessary to say anything further about this. The only other matter raised in the appeal relates to the direction of the lower Court for payment of costs by the ninth defendant and, the other members of his family.

(2.) On the first point, we are unable to accede to the contention of the appellant. Though incidentally there is a reference to interest at 9 per cent, per annum in Ex. A, the scheme of Ex. A is not to make the mortgage accountable for the realisations from the mortgage property except to a very limited extent. [His Lordship dealt with the terms and effect of the document and concluded.]

(3.) This contention therefore fails.