RAMANATHAN AND SETHURAMAN Vs. V KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 3 are the appellants. Respondents 1 to 3 filed suit O.S. No. 2363/79 against the appellants and the fourth respondent who was the second defendant in the suit before the Additional District Munsifs Court, Villupuram, for recovery of Rs. 3000/-due under a mortgage with further interest aud costs on the following averments: The Appellants and one Ramachandran, the second defendant in the suit, and the fourth respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 2000/-on 7.4.1966 from one Veerasamy Mudaliar, the father of respondents 1 to 3, and executed a registered mortgage under Ex. A-1 agreeing to repay the amount borrowed with interest at 12% per annum. Respondents 1 to 3 as heirs and legal representatives of the mortgagee Veerasamy Mudaliar were entitled to the mortgage money and since they did not pay any amount towards the mortgage either to Veerasamy Mudaliar while he was alive or to respondents 1 to 3 after his death in spite of repeated demands, the suit has to be filed. Respondents 5 and 6 were subsequent alienees of some of the mortgaged properties. Respondents 1 to 3 claimed interest at 6-1/4% per annum since the appellants and the fourth respondents were agriculturists.

(2.) THE fourth respondent and the sixth respondent remained absent and were ex parte. THE second appellant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the first appellant. THE defence was as follows: THE appellants and the fourth respondent did not receive any money from Veerasamy Mudaliar. THE fourth respondent had borrowed driblets from Veerasamy Mudaliar a sum of Rs. 1,500/- and Veerasamy Mudaliar wanted the fourth respondent to give as security some property for the said amount and since the fourth respondent did not possess any property, Veerasamy Mudaliar asked him to give as security the property belonging to the appellants. At the request of the fourth respondent, the appellants, who were his brothers, with a view to help him joined in the execution of the mortgage in favour of Veerasamy. THE fourth respondent had paid back a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the knowledge of the first appellant to Veerasamy. This amount had not been given credit to. It was only the fourth respondent who was liable to pay the mortgage amount. THE suit was barred by limitation. THE appellants owned only an extent of 66 cents of lands and as their annual income is 1979 was only Rs. 500/-, they were entitled the benefits of Act 13 of 1980.

(3.) MR. V. Lakshminarayanan for MR. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the definition of "family" as found in Act 13 of 1980 would not take in brothers and in the instant case, if the income or the value of the property of each of the appellants was taken into consideration separately, then by virtue of the provisions of Act 13 of 1980, each one of the appellants would be a debtor entitled to the benefits and the suit was therefore liable to be dismissed.