SUPPU SOKKAYYA BHATTAR Vs. SUPPU BHATTAR ALIAS SKALYANA BHATTAR, MINOR BY HIS GUARDIAN KARPURA SUNDARA BHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the findings, the suit properties were left by the Will of Chandrasekhara Bhattar to Rajah Bhattar, the last male owner. During his lifetime he effected a settlement Exhibit C with Chandrasekhara s widow Thalamuthammal, pursuant to which he paid her Rs. 1,750, which sum he raised by mortgaging the suit and other properties under Exhibit I on 5th June 1881. He died in 1882 and on 9th March 1882 his widow transferred the suit properties to Thalamuthammal on her undertaking to discharge Exhibit I The plaintiff as next reversioner instituted Original Suit No. 15 of 1882 and obtained a declaration that her alienation was not binding on the reversioners. During the litigation Thalamuthammal borrowed money from the defendant under Exhibit XXIII to enable her to discharge Exhibit f, and according to the finding he discharged it. In 1891. he sued on his mortgage Exhibit XXIII, brought the suit properties to sale and purchased the interest of his mortgagor Thalamuthammal has been in possession according to the finding since 1896 On the death of Rajah Bhattar s widow the plaintiff sued for possession as heir of the last male owner and the lower Courts have given him a decree on paying into Court Rs. 4,016-4-0 for principal Rs. 1,260, plus interest down to the date of the defendant s getting possession on 13th October 1896, Rs. 2,756-4-0 (paragraph No. 18 of the Subordinate Judge s judgment). Having regard to the fact that at the time when he advanced the money on mortgage of the suit properties under Exhibit XXIII, the mortgagor s title was being challenged it was obviously for the defendant s benifit to keep alive the mortgage under Exhibit I. Chama Swami v. Padala Anandu 31 M. 439 : 3 M.L.T. 395 : 18 M.L.J. 306, Dinobundhu Shaw Chowdhry v. Jogmaya Dasi 29 C. 154 : 12 M.L.T. 73 : 4 Bom. L.R. 238 : 29 I.A 9 : 6 C.W.N. 209 (P.C.) and Whiteley v. Dellaney 1904 A.C 132 : 83 L.J. Ch. 349 : 110 L.T. 434 : 58 S.J. 218. It wasequally for his benefit within the meaning of Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act to keep it alive when he purchased the equity of redemption in execution of his decree and he must be presumed to have done so. Arumugasundara v. Narasimha Iyer 29 Ind. Cas 916 : 29 M.L.J 583 : (1915) M.W.N. 397 : 2 L.W. 542 : 18 M.L.T. 110.

(2.) THE appeal is dismissed with costs.