MUNI AKKAYYAMMA Vs. MAISTEY PAPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, allowing respondent-defendant's application I.A.No.I, for the amendment of the second issue in Original Suit No. 117 of 1954.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent the defendant in the lower Court. Plaintiffs suit was for the recovery of about Rs.6,981 due under a hypothecation deed executed by the defendant in his favour. The defendant inter alia pleaded that the hypothecation deed was not validly attested according to law and that the same was not binding on him. To put the contention in the very words used by the defendant, it runs as follows. "Defendant denies that the mortgage deed has been validly attested according to law. He therefore submits that it is not binding on him as a mortgage."

(3.) This is what the defendant has stated in para 2 of his written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issue covering this point. "Is the suit document legally defective and therefore is the suit claim not maintainable ?"