DEVADAS (MINOR) Vs. MANIYAM SADASIVA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision petition the plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner and he challenges the correctness of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in rejecting his suit for redemption of a mortgage on the ground that an insufficient amount of court-fees had been paid. The amount of court-fee which the petitioner had paid was calculated on the amount of the principal of the mortgage debt. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in addition to the amount already paid, Rs. 652-7-0, the petitioner was required to pay about Rs. 150 in respect of a claim which, the learned Judge held, was made for the balance due to him for acts of waste or wrong alleged to be committed by the mortgagee.

(2.) A usufructuary mortgage was executed on the 5 May, 1926, by one Vasudeva Reddiar in favour of the first and second defendants and the father of the third defendant in the suit, as mortgagees, to secure a loan of Rs. 9,000 ; some property in a mitta in the District of Salem was security for the mortgage. In regard to that property the mortgagor, Vasudeva Reddiar, was entitled absolutely to a one-half share and, in respect of the other half a perpetual right of enjoyment conditioned upon payment of Rs. 175 per annum as rent ; failure to pay the rent was a ground for forfeiture of that half of the property. In the mortgage deed the mortgagees covenanted to pay the above annual rent. On the 2nd April, 1930, the equity of redemption was transferred to the plaintiff in the suit and, by virtue of that transfer he instituted the suit for redemption. It is convenient hereafter to refer to him as the mortgagor.

(3.) The mortgagees failed to pay the annual rent of Rs. 175 and therefore failed to observe their obligation under the mortgage deed, and, as a consequence, one half of the property has been forfeited. The plaintiff alleges that the value of his interest in the lost property, prior to its forfeiture is represented by a sum of Rs. 12,000 and he contends that, Rs. 9,000 of that sum being appropriated towards the mortgage debt, that debt is fully discharged and he is entitled to an order for redemption of the property. Further, he alleges that he is entitled to obtain from the mortgagees the balance of Rs. 3,000 the difference between the value of the lost land and the amount of the mortgage debt.