LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-132

BABY AMMAL Vs. V.SRINIVASAN

Decided On April 25, 2013
BABY AMMAL Appellant
V/S
V.SRINIVASAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 and 2 in the Original Suit O.S.No.696/2004 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry are the appellants in the second appeal. The first respondent V.Srinivasan as plaintiff filed the said Original Suit against the appellants 1 and 2 herein and the second respondent Annamalai, arraying them as defendants 1 to 3 respectively. A house bearing old door No.79, new door No.3/16 in Mariamman Koil Street, Saram Village, Oulgaret Sub Registration District and Pondicherry Registration District, morefully described in the plaint schedule is the suit property. The first appellant Baby Ammal is the wife of the second appellant/second defendant Senthilvel. Second appellant Senthilvel and the second respondent Annamalai are the sons of Varadarasu Pillai. The suit property originally belonged to the said Varadarasu Pillai. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the said Varadarasu Pillai executed a mortgage by conditional sale in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff Srinivasan, who is also the son of the said Varadarasu Pillai, on 11.10.1973 for a consideration of Rs.6,500/- and the property was handed over to the first appellant/first defendant with a condition that in case the said amount would be repaid within five years thereafter, the first appellant/first defendant would execute a Sale Deed in favour of Varadarasu Pillai in respect of the suit property.

(2.) Contending that the said transaction amounted to a mortgage and the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage by paying back the amount, which formed the consideration of the mortgage and that his attempt to redeem the mortgage by making payment of the same to the first appellant/first defendant proved ineffective, as they refused to recognise the right of redemption, he had filed the suit for the relief of redemption of mortgage, for a direction against the first appellant/first defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property and also for a direction to the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret Registrar office to cancel the mortgage deed dated 11.10.1973 registered as document No.1639/1973 and for cost.

(3.) The 2nd respondent/3rd defendant Annamalai claiming to be a co-owner entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property on the death of Varadarasu Pillai has contended that, as a co-owner, he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till June 2002 and thereafter vacated the suit property, since it had become dilapidated and uninhabitable. It was his further contention that though Varadarasu Pillai originally mortgaged the property under a Deed of Mortgage by conditional sale dated 11.10.1973 in favour of the first appellant/first defendant, who is none other than the wife of the second appellant/second defendant, possession of the suit property was never handed over to the first defendant by the said Varadarasu Pillai at any point of time.