KUPPUSAMI IYENGAR Vs. BAVASAMI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree of the lower Court directs that the suit lauds shall be partitioned into four equal shares and one of them shall be allotted and delivered to the plaintiffs. The decree also gives the latter mesne profits. The 1st, 2nd and 11 defendants hare filed this appeal.

(2.) The facts relevant for determining the points that arise in the appeal lie within a very narrow compass. I find it, however, necessary and useful, on account of the judgment of the lower Court and the arguments advanced, to refer to and state the facts of the case fully.

(3.) One Govindappa had two sons, defendants Nos. 12 and 13. The plaintiff is the son of the 12 defendant. These formed members of a joint Hindu family and owned valuable land of the extent of about 340 acres. They executed a simple mortgage (Ex. B of 19 February, 1898) in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one Ramanathan Chetty the deceased father of the 4 defendant for securing re-payment of Rs. 60,000. Previous to this mortgage a lease had been executed in favour of the 6 defendant for a period of five years (Ex. A, 28 April, 1897). On 31 July, 1899, Annamalai Chetti, the agent of Ramanathan Chetty aforesaid, obtained a transfer of the lessor's interest in the lease (Ex. C). On 4 May, 1900. Ramanathan Chetty and the 1 defendant obtained an assignment of the lessee's (8th defendant) interest (Ex, F), The effect of these two assignments was to enable two of the mortgagees, the 1 defendant and Ramahathan Chetty, to get possession of the properties mortgaged to them by way of simple mortgage. 1 may mention in this connection that the 2nd defendant is a High Court, Vakil and that the 1 defendant is his clerk. The next step taken by the mortgagees was to file a suit on 24 September, 1900, in the Negapatam Sub-Court (O.S. No. 38 of 1900) for the recovery of the amount due under Ex. B. It is sufficient to say that on 19 June, 1901, a decree was passed in this suit.