RUDRAPPA Vs. PUTTALAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, in B.A. No. 57/49-50 confirming those of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 178 of 47-48.

(2.) The appellant was the plaintiff in the case. He filed a suit for redemption of the property mortgaged by his mother as his guardian for a sum of Rs. 2500/-. Out of this sum, it is not disputed, a sum of Rs. 700/- was paid for discharging the prior encumbrances created by the plaintiff's deceased father and a sum of Rs. 181/-was required for meeting funeral expenses of his deceased father. Plaintiff admits that there was legal necessity to this extent. Out of the balance of about Rs. 1619/- plaintiff's mother purchased a house for a sum of Rs. 1500/- and it is contended that even this house has been subsequently sold away for Rs. 3500/- and that the plaintiff is not liable to pay anything more than what was required for the funeral expenses and to discharge the debts contracted by his father. It has, however, to be remembered that under the Will executed by the deceased father of the plaintiff the debts had to be discharged and moreover it was necessary to meet the funeral expenses of the deceased. It is contended that it was open to the mother to have executed a usufructuary mortgage for a sum of Rs. 1000/- only and it was not necessary for her to have mortgaged the property for Rs. 2500/-. A little reflection will show that what the mother did was much more beneficial to the minor, as otherwise, by paying only a sum of Rs. 1000/- the respondent would have been in possession of the house, under this arrangement the mother purchased a house and her act was prudent as it later on fetched more than double the amount she had paid. On the whole the act of the plaintiff's mother is prudent and is for the benefit of the minor. The lower Courts were therefore right in coming to this conclusion.

(3.) The respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 159-8-6 on the ground that she spent that amount for repairing the house. There is no independent evidence to support this, and the appeal has to be allowed to the extent of disallowing this amount.