R RAMACHANDRA THEVAR Vs. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for redemption, the defendant suffered a decree partially and questioning the same, he has filed the second appeal.

(2.) The suit property originally belonged to one Sheik Dawood Rowther. On 6-3-1964, he sold the same in favour of one Ramuammal. Ramuammal's first husband is Sundararaj and her second husband is Kottaiya Thevar. After the death of Ramuammal, Veeranan s/o Kottaiya Devar became the absolute owner of the suit property, since other heirs of Ramuammal predeceased, thereby leaving no other legal heirs. From the owner, Veeranan, the plaintiffs have purchased the property on 3-7-1983. The predecessor in interest of Veeranan usufructuarily mortgaged (othi) the suit property in favour of the defendant. In pursuance of the sale, in favour of the plaintiffs by the owner of the suit property, the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the suit property, which right was given, even in the sale deed. The plaintiffs are entitled to the benefit of Debt Relief Acts viz. Acts 18/80 and 50/82. Therefore, the othi stand discharged and the plaintiffs, who got the right of equity of redemption, are entitled to recover the possession of the suit property from the defendant. On the above said allegations, the suit was filed for possession after passing a final decree for redemption, including the future profits also.

(3.) The defendant questioning the right of Veeranan to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs, would contend that he had purchased the suit property from its lawful owner, who inherited the same, after the demise of the predecessor in interest, and that the claim of the plaintiffs that Othi is discharged, in pursuance of the Debt Relief Act is untenable, that he had prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession, and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to equity of redemption, since they have purchased the property from a person, who has no right of any kind in the suit property. On the basis of the above contention, in addition to other defence also, the defendant opposed the claim of the plaintiffs.