- (1.)THIS appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree in original suit No. 7640 of 1992 on the file of the vii additional city civil judge, Bangalore, whereby the said judge decreed the redemption suit of the respondent.
(2.)I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri b. n. dayananda and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri b. s. nagaraj. I have also perused the case records.
(3.)THE brief facts of the case are as follows: that the appellant who was the owner of property bearing old No. 39/41, new municipal No. 18, situated at ii main road, gavipuram guttahalli, Bangalore, described as schedule 'a' to plaint, had sold the same to one ramachandra, son of kotrappa under a registered sale deed dated 13-11-1986, ex. P-2. Thereafter, the respondent had purchased the said property from the said ramachandra under a registered sale deed dated 13-4-1992 marked as ex. P-1. The entire property consisted of three tenements. There were two tenants by name kamalamma and papanna when the respondent purchased the property from ramachandra as stated above; however, the third tenement was under the occupation of the appellant at that point of time and he continued to be so even to this day and the same is described as 'b' schedule property to suit before the court below. The respondent after his purchase of the suit schedule property had filed two eviction cases against the said tenants and also took possession of the said two tenements through court. It is stated that the vendor of the respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the appellant and allowed him to stay in the 'b' schedule property for about one year and that the appellant had executed an agreement to that effect in favour of the vendor of the respondent. It further appears that after one year, the appellant went on postponing to deliver possession of the 'b' schedule property to the vendor of the respondent and in the meantime, the respondent purchased the entire property from the said ramachandra when the possession in respect of the portion under the occupation of the appellant more fully set out as suit schedule 'b' property continued to be in his possession. That the respondent had approached the appellant to take back the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, but the appellant did not oblige the respondent to receive the money and to hand over possession of the 'b' schedule property. It is averred that the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- was received by the vendor of the respondent as a sum under an agreement of usufructuory mortgage and it is for that reason the respondent filed a redemption suit before the vii additional city civil judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as city civil judge for convenience), for the redemption of the 'b' schedule property and farther for possession thereof. At the time of the registration of the suit, the respondent had also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which according to the respondent was the mortgage money before the court below.