SREEMAN MAHA MANDALESWARA KATARI SALAWA MAHARAJA OOMADARAJAH MAHARAJA RAJ BOMMARAJU BAHADUR DEVA MAHARAJULINGARU RAJAH OF KARVETNAGAR Vs. ECHAMPADI SARAVANA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit (No. 25 of 1900), which was instituted by the Rajah of Karvetnagar for the recovery of 4 villages, Kolathur, Melapudi, Kelapudi and Pemmanallur, Sir Subramania Aiyar, Benson and Bashyam Ayyangar, JJ., for the purpose of disposing of the appeal preferred to the High Court from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot, directed the lower Court on the 15th December 1903 to determine the following issues: 1. What are the amounts, if any, still duo to the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 on their respective simple or usufructuary mortgages?

(2.) Whether all or any of the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are bonafide mortgagees for value without notice (vide, definition in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act) of the plaintiff s title? and

(3.) What sums, if any, are payable by the plaintiff to defendants Nos. 1 to 6 respectively before recovering possession of the plaint villages? 2. The results of the enquiry were submitted in due course, but as the findings calculated the sums due by the plaintiff to the defendants and by the 1st defendant to defendants Nos. 2 to 6 only up to the 6th July 1903, the High Court before dealing with the objections to the finding directed the lower Court on 21st November 1911 to ascertain what would be due till the 8th July 1912 and also ordered that a Receiver may be appointed for the property from that date. We have now before us the revised findings and shall proceed to deal with the objections to them. 3. There are six defendants in this suit; the 6th defendant did not appear before us. He has a mortgage subsequent to that of the 4th defendant. The 1st defendant was an officer of the Karvetnagar Raj and all the four villages stand in his name, but it has been held by this Court that he is only the legal owner of the property, the plaintiff being the beneficial owner. It has also been held that before the plaintiff could recover the villages he was bound to pay the 1st defendant the principal sum of Rs. 99,563-15 6 with such interest thereon as might b) found due to him, while on the other hand the 1st defendant was liable for the income derived from the villages from the date of Exhibit B, that is, 25th August 1883. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 hold mortgages on these villages executed in their favour by the 1st defendant and it has been ruled that if they became mortgagees under the 1st defendant without notice of Exhibit B, express or constructive, and in the bona fids belief that the 1st defendant was the owner, they would be entitled to be paid the full amount due to them under their respective mortgages before the plaintiff could recover the villages. If they were not such bona fide mortgagees for value, they should be treated merely as sub-mortgagees under the 1st defendant on the footing that he was a usufructuary mortgagee for the amount due to him.