Smt Channamma W/O Channaveeregowda vs Sri Kempeeregowda S/O Lingegowda on 23 October, 2009

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court

Smt Channamma W/O Channaveeregowda vs Sri Kempeeregowda S/O Lingegowda on 23 October, 2009

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

 __aA2~§@'AL0RE_$59':§4h

Ex: 3% max»: comm" OF KARNAHXKA AT BANGALORE. V  ~  T . 

mm}: ms 11% 25" DAY (:2? OCTOBER 2009  * «   .. .f'  » '

BEFORE

THE HON"BLE MR JUSTICE HEN.  *I§A$ "    _ J 1:'

12.3.14. no..692%,{2oo6=  % -

BETWEEN

-an-mu-nu-mm».....--.

sm caammm  .
W50 cmmwaxragaaaowna -. V    
SINCE DECEASE1") REPTD. B"r'§~}}3R.i;;RS'- _  % é
AFTER 3% DEATH Qf*'.m.R s:i;;>N &_fi,:R    'V V
  4.  

1. SMTPUfTACHAN?§ﬁ.§&ﬂ4ﬁ..'   ., 
wzo LAT}; CI»LmN'Av£§;;v,EG0x>¢r)A "-  V  
AGED 65 YEARS  H    -
REA  VELLAGE -» '  
MA}iJ{}RHOB3LI -   
c;1ANNAPA*£':~$;4.'__5*:1,V502._  =

2, am Pi5.}'I1'z1LINGEC-(T}\¥w'DA
 germ »..B%c>I;--'-r 49.YEARs"' """" '*
*Sx0,L;s;_1fE CMMIAVEEREGQWDA
max Ni), I'237','--v.9_'i"§+I"£:.a§A1'§§

 APPELLANTS

" " -7 1 '(gag ; As1.i¥1e:::i:'{ B PA':'1'L§ ADV.)

 AN3} '' H

7 Man; -9...

'   5 f A ~ .1; SR; KEMPEERQEGOWDA

S50 LHQGEGGWDA

SEQCE BECEASEB BY HIS LES

SHCRI YELLEGOWDA

S30 LATE KEIVIPEEREGOWDA SINCE DECEASED

OLW2



NOTE: REGARDING YELLEG<')WDA
13113:) ON 24,6.2m4 HIS ms DID NOT
ccmm ON RECORD BEFORE 31%
237' APPELLATE COURT

1. SHRI K K SPHVALWGMAH
SEC) LATE KEBv?EEREG{)WBA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PRESENTLY AT NO.38'7fB,

IST FLOOR , 24"' B (moss
1331: H STAGE
BANGALORE-56$ 970.

sMTG0PAM1v1A    _  
W10 LATE $121 VADYAT sRns.tzjv';AsA,  . " '
IYENGAR, 70 YEARS "    =
(snxrcg DECEASED)

SMT ARIVWDANIMA  . }"

we LATE 312.; 9,3 's;RI,:§_:x{As.ég  H A 

(SINCE DECEASED);  ' 

2.Ds3A1~zAVt{z)1iAN2:,_--V  ,   _ _'
szo D.S.SR1NIVASA Z'i'EI*lGAR"a.__  _
AGED46'1'EARSé ' '   

3. KAN}\§A_ _   .  

$50 D.s.$.1gm1VASA £Y}3,N§}AR
AGES 36    " 
si0"SRB§:vAsA.

  3 3: 4 ARE mA'E3§ITAhmaRA..NAIw1g11,1
 4cz1ANNA9A'T2§_2A~s?; 501'

 SR1 SSHAMA IYENGAR
'S56 =SR1fNIVASA EYENGAR
  mgn ABOUT 65 YEARS
v "ma KQGTAKAL,
"?,A2Q1ANAGARAM 571 511

Z ' " ' V %  ' ~ A. 5; "SR1 D s 12 amaswamy IYENGAR

" SIG VAEYAT SRBVIVAS IYENGAR
AGES ABGUT 65 YEARS,
SUB WSPECTOR OF PGLICE



OFFICE OF THE'. DISTRICT
SUPERHWYENDENT POLICE
CPHTRDURGA ~-- 5?? 561

7. SM? LAKS 
WK) LATE KRISIrﬂ~IASWAMY
R,/A KOOTHAGERE
KESTOOR HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK W 5371 428.

(By Sr} P.D.SURANA FOR R1
R2 NOTICE DISPENSEI) WITH)

asp. FILED USS. 190 OF c:>c._AG_Ams'1*- . &
DEGREE 9113. 12.2395, PAss£«';i;~~ IN i?,L.1¥,NO.'€§9.f2{§G£.{)N "mg FILE
9:7 fzm ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE -(sIe_I;aN.) A2: "2gw{ANAGARAh4,
ALLOWITNG THE APFE 14:1. AND"SBITING;£sSmE  mmgmm
ANE) BECREE m.=311,11a.20u2 eass-E9  ,iG.s.11;2oo2 (old
no.144f1963)ON   10:?  <::,J;'"' (.¥R.DN.)&JMI-'C,
CI-1ANNA'PATNA;' "     

This éppeal   reserved for orcicrs, this day,
NAGAMOHA';rJﬁ;i$ J ' p:anaﬁ9c_e'dj1ie following
   s:;:con*:¥A.a»ppe'a;i1 ié;"'éii::'eected against the judgncnt and decree

é ae;a1§,;:.;,No.59;2eo2 passed by the Addicivii snags

 }.._ {Sr.D:.i}§,  rcversisxg the judgnent and decree dated

  3;r;e.2m  %;:gs.2§o.11;29e2 and eiisrnissing tbs suit of the piaintiﬁs.

A    ifxe appaeilants m the piaintiﬁs and respendmm are the

  befere the Trial Caurt. In this judgnent for convenience, the

V'  ' ~ néiiies are I'%f6I'£'¢d ta their status before the Trial Court.

{j>\\'r1/\{

 . 2 " 



4

3. it is the case cf the plaintiffs that erigiaaiiy the §iaix1t s<;_§.1§{_it:,I_f:T~.V_

property belongeci to one D.S.Sn'nivasa Iyangar. The     _

I}.S.Srir:ivas Iyangzzr martgaged the scheduie progserty.  at"

defendant no.1 Imée: a registered usofmctuéxy  "ix, { 

22.02.1942 fer a sum of 515.290:-. s,1;h;seque:1:3y;"~:he o;jg};:;sI1V" éwnég 

D.S.Srinivas Iyangar executed a reg's£é:~e;Vdf"%»sa1e deed  2Vé'.;.Vé§63
conveying the schedixkt pmperiy ' i1;.._favot;3"   aﬁght to
recieezn the earlier mortgags,  demztands and
1aWyc>r's netice dataﬁv   to reﬁeern the
mortgage. On thg';"t)'t};_e:1f._:bix:.V.Eiis reply notice dated
19.3.1963 hgdséi  Ai3'ie"'séiwdu§e property. Having
:10 ether altexv-:;':,;_1&ti*£;*s;" thﬁ  fa): redemption at' mortgage,

recovery of p»osaV§é:L.~;<s.i%o1:, mcsné._;5r:>f§ts etc. The iimt defendant entered

4.a:;;:;3earanc+2.{ befére t.he""i':*§::lV___§3_g:>A1.2:'t and fiieé written statement itzieraiia

Acantaﬁéing t1';étV.h::.;ifs"~--a_tenant in the schedule pmperty even bcfnre £113

usoffsreﬁiggjé  dated 22.2.§94£'£L It £3 further contended that

Hvtige usoﬁizctusfg? 'zi§§1'£gage came ta be éischarged and :11: original

" 4iii<1{tgaga_deed'*'t;vas retumad iii: the erigina} ewnﬁr [}.8.Sz'inivas Iymgar

€§'iﬁi 'Ag_V'd'i-ﬁfiarge Shara an it. Aﬁer discharge of usoﬁuctuary meitgagez

VA  ﬁe miginai owner D.S.Sr'mivas Iyengar leased the scheéuie land in

  ilzﬁéem of one Marijag', subsequentzy, in me yea; E948-49 the original

" earner D.S.Srinivas Iyenga; leased the scheduie and in ﬁweux cf ﬁrst

F
ﬁ"\/°«.x'\».,



 %.:G32$1ide1Lv;itii3n:b_  _

defendant. Thus the ﬁrst defendant is in possession of schedule land gs a

tenant and net as a mortgagee.

4. Defendants 2 to 5 ﬂied separate written statement  L.  V'

case of the plaintiﬁs mé have stated that t11eyv1:'3'ié*e'z2:3   'dﬁcrée 

the suit of the plainiiffs. The 6"' defendant   

ﬂied by defendants 2 to 5. The 8"'»V;1_§'I"¢ar;da12tA"'£ii¢d' s§f§a;§t§:;v"§r;riitén
statement interalia cantencfing  p1aintA;3_ﬁ7?»sVVV:1i'§x:e"'1:_V{A}t bi€.'(3€'H11'.53.'ﬁ1§.vf§()"fnCT$
uf the schedule: §and tméer the    28.2.1963. She
further ccntendeé that ina au'v:s;::m§1 jag'   Iyemgat'
in the year 2954   x:§.ég:c§af'f§:"ix1a'n::ena41ce of 2"'
defendant. This   xt'§1e first éefendant is in
pcssession <1)?   In i_;.'v1VcV=.Wev:ve11t of suit being decreed
then the 8"'  her share in the: suii land, On

the basés of  ﬁameé 311% following issues for its

A 1" .   ..  ziéé 1" dejéndarzf is in passessiarz affine met': {and
'  gray  as cmszerzded by him er whether tfste I" defendant
' ,. irzvpossession oftize same as mortgagee cm comfer:dezz7 by
 .  Vviizfe plainiggﬁ?
V. "  ":'s;)_  ﬁﬁetizer the morfgage deed def. 2.2.2.3942 was redeemed is:
V' abom' 3 gr 4 yearsﬁam the date ofrszorggage as czmtencied
lay J" defendans?
ﬁt) Wireiizer the salsa wfsuii iezrzci infavozgr 0fpI:2t':1z.fﬁ"i5 vaia'
under ﬁzfy.-fore Tenancyﬁci?



iv} Whether there was a family arrangement as pIec2a'ed__Z)y

piairzrzfana' in that 2"' defendani was aﬂotted the suitviagézz'

or whether there was parIz'z'ioz': on 26.4.1954 qxmzf  A' 

right of mainteﬂaﬁce was giver: to 2'" c2'ef.5z::c;?a.»z t.'f:: Vt.33;V3'  _  V'

Zazza'? M » _ . V . V
V) §-Tﬁxetirer the sale in favour e:>f}'3¢'air:tzZ}""z,s{ éi'.€§'0.: £:§ri=bé?:a;§f' A'
3"' defemram and wfzefher 8"' dejzergdm? has a:;'..;-age: m';--.§é~ --. . %' "

saidpropergz? _  V _ V

vs) T 0 what reliefs, gfarrzy, is 2'}2;§4;z2ig%2:':I1fer2z;ié".3¢?:;§V':20.5'

5. Befere the Tti/zv1l""  egxamisxcé three
witnessas as P'W.1 to 3 a;2€i_g0£  5.  defendant
examined six wimﬁéssfeésé   to D25. The
Triai Caurt     03;? Qth the skis and on
appreciatioxgiérf   _'dr}c.iimentary evidence decreed the
suit of phmiiﬁk to redeem the mortgage

and £0 hagzaaver af1ic._::proésVs€ssi<$x1 (5% the suit land to the piaintiﬁs viée

 3i.j(},2G0&2 .V' "" ";4Lvgg'ie\:'eé by this judgnent of the Trial

   ﬂied an appeai in R.A.NG.69/2302 before thﬁ

   _1gwer apg§e ﬂam_  After heafmg arguments and on the ﬁasis of the

 xiziatgrial cm rééﬁmi, the Inwer appeilaie court: ﬂamed tha falinwing paints

" - ftmiizs jctziisideration:

'H 1) W72e2'}3er the friai Cour: izas ﬁcmzedpraper issues and has

drmvr: correct concizmorts to the same?

./7""'vV'""



«ha

it) Whether {Ste appsziiazztv make out the grozzrzdfor appeat' as

set am' in the append?

2:33} Wfzeiker the judgment and decree passed by    .

deserves is: be set' aside?

iv} What' order?

6. The lower appeliate   an
both the side and on is-appreciaftian of .912 rectttti iteid that
fast defendant was in possession   . §~$'b»';i_',.tenaI:t and not
as a mortgagee. It £3   tie jurisdiction to
go hits the questi{zn":of'!§ar.;inder Section 44 of the
Land Ref0Ima----Act.A  heﬁttltﬁt the  of the Trial Court is
com-my to    §xﬂP.No,7?17x1982. Accordingly

the lower appeﬁatg £:o;n'tVV'r¢"t?%:fsed.¢': tI:e judgment of the Trial Court and

_ti;'smisse;i. suit of  under the irnpugxwd judgment dated

  12 .2GQ§.  . ttii's..;secerzcl appeal by the piaintiﬂs.

.'  thé  admission af tlﬁg s-:-scimd apwi tiliﬁ «mutt Vidﬁ

 t, strict éateti 2?:'2t_2ﬁ;O3 ﬁameé the fsilowing suﬁstamial qumﬁmn of law:

a VA   » AA §¥'?ss§£§ze,t' the iawer Appeﬂate court was ﬁwfzﬁed in iwiciing that the

I»  rﬁézrtéttgé $42: up by tﬁie piaintgffskouid be in afzeyance tit'? £3523 right of the

  '  ;§%féﬁ§&ﬁt is decided by the Land Reforms Tribzznaf and zzcmrdirzglfy

at ' ' . ttaeittirzg aside the jztzfgment cfthez ?'r:':.zf Cate???



8. Sri Ashcak B.PatiL leameé cmmsel for the pfaintiﬁk cantejidaci

$123: the lower appellate court' ccsmnﬁttsd an iliegality in holdigg ~ V.

Trial Court has no juxisdiction to ﬁve a ﬁnding regardlng tenaﬂéy anal Vtilslt "  M

the same is exclusive domain of the land Tri}:un'al«.--.  :ay§sé;'7app§ua:s 

court coznmitted an illegality in haiding m.;e,th;;4f_l Tﬁial  ms 

framed issues pmpvarly and the fmdi:1g$_:11e samg  _iIil39z1'$:.§:t§ "Tile
lower appellate mm ceerrm1iited'e1'ror in .Secti(.;ln"26V gndv. iliccﬁon
44 of the Land Reforms Act. liiaelboveazr   cmnmitted an
error 'm not properly appreciating iélzhzzfdoétlgngxztlaifjf  an record.
Reliance is piaccé on?_i§el§?3l£:mvfgl1g di:;:i§;io_:l#::~_  ll 
E} 20:23 Atﬁgcw'  Q  ' 
 ..Chan£i;aka1it::Sha1ﬂi_axrao Machlalé V. Parubai Bhairu

ii)   :97;    

N;N anjappéi V.' sgaféiah.

iii) gf "  1952. $6253:
.."     V.Bhasl<;ar Vishweshar

'  _ SC 2289
 "  _G!<§§£:éf Industries Ltd, V.S¢thia Mercantile

 ,'_m_,LAi~%3 Sc 70
z  Vitshoba Chakkayya 'V. Mohd.MuItani and another

  ml. 5.311997 SC 456
v 5 Pagichhan Mistry V.Accl1iabar Itiistry

l V' "  Per conﬁa, Sn' P.D.Sumna., learned aomtsel for the first

 bldefcndant suppom the impugxecl judgment cf the Lcswer Appellate C-aura

M. It is contendeci that by as: of parties the mcngage éaieii 22.1 1942 came to

aw



9

be discharged. The eviéence on recerd establishes the fact that the 

defandani was a tenant min: in {he mazzrtgage in 1942 and   ~

discharge in the year 1948-49. The Lower Agpeﬂate    u 

appiyuzg Section 26 and 44 of the Land Refonﬁg AajtA=;§git¢séci.  ix '«

judgnent. In supper: cf his cantention reﬁgnce isgﬁéced 0;:T.ti1€:'§':x:i1V<)wi13:§g VA

judgments:

i) {LR1994Ka:r804i "x_ _ 
Maliappa Bharan:a}gpaT 'Mada ';-\f'}.Basa§fa1;ﬂiappa

ii} AB?1963ASC194:1"""" :  " 1 
Ptithi §~Iatiz. S _iagh S:_,1rs>a,_g"'AhirA "  «. 

    
Krisi:na2nu';;hy V's{.'«K;'i;+;¥1n=¢__i§.ao 

iv)    . .
 _}«,a$§<sh1'r2a;1'""J{' D-"lIi3",«(4>'¢l.'5&'__t"' " J__

V) §;§{..§fo1a}ﬂ;i'H4VEbf4a§%;;s'L'sf:ries 803
« .. Neelan1a:;i'Pat:t1aii¢ Mussadi V..SukaIuvu Beharu

  _Vb'Ai§!;eVai27§Al:"a1gmnc:nts own both the side ané yeraseé the maze

recofé, «  

11. ~  C2rta:v0ft11e paints ﬂamed by the lower Appeliate Court is as

 41m:i_k:::::V VL

V' §"F'§":'?:e£}zer rite Trial Caurt kas ﬁazmedproper issues and has drawn

V ' V V .  éarreci mmsfuxiom to #22 same? "

12. In the" itnpugted judgnent the Lowrsr Appellate Court: held

the above point in negative. The reasoning of the Lower Appeiiata Cum

 §5V,3L



I0

is factuali}; incorrect. The issues ﬁmned by the Triai court on the 

the pleadings are correct and they are in accordance with law,    .

Aypsellata Cam While hniding the above point in nega£iV£~~§:a}é::a§i"éiatad  u

as to whai are the correct issues. Without assig11ingi.a1iyj.ré3a1s<3{ns,'t¥1é'E:3r.x§ctg[ .A

Appeilaia Com': simply amiss that the scasgns  'by the   3 "

not at ail satisfactory. How the ire: 'satisfact§ry* is  skated
by the iower Appellate Court.   ioﬁsﬁ Aﬁyeﬂate
Cami that the Triai Cmsrt had neg:   issues is
factizally inserrect' ':l!¥."f:€:§ff.}f3,     by the Lower
Appeilaiza Court    to the pleadings and

evidence an xecerd. V' ' 

13,  lawef asp;3éi§;£§¥i€e»Tb¢c::§:z"t"c{imn1itted an iiiegality in homing

that the r1*i;4i_vco:1r£L 4§1:1s_i:1(} jxsﬁisﬁiictidzi :0 go intn the questizm {If mortgage

'it: «--%9fiew»-':§i:i'~ b;;:+.:u;1der S$r$.ii01':"'26 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and

Segtiieﬁ   Rcfonns act, It is net in dispute mat in

 "   {)wS.3$Eo.1'¢4i63  is seeking redcmpﬁon ef mertgga dzeeé dateé

 422.V2,I9$2"   oﬁzer reliefs. 0:: the other hand, the centesiing first

 V '£$%£E,'natiai1i...«f1e$ Farm Na?' before the {$13 Tribtmal fa: gm: sf

3    in respect of Imds in question under the Kamaiaka Land

kéfézﬁas Act, The Lmd Tribtmal, chmapama T311112 by its order dated

 V  iﬁ.i.I982 gamed atzctmaxzcy rights in favem' nf $5: defendant in resyect

V sf schedule laziés. Piainﬁﬁ qtwstiened the aréer of Lana Tribzmal befcsre

this court 'm W,P.'E"71'?s'1932 3516 the smite came ta be aliewed and the

,:;7}-~l\',-*'"'\:?'\«w



ii

matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in ac<:or€3z1r1s:>§:VVwi'tii";

law. Again this court mediﬁed the erder in §V.P.No,3G2G9;'199f-"$3    _

I direct ﬁre Civil Court wfrerein I963 case  far V' "

redemption to dispose of the case within a pevﬂoa'     .'

dare cf recreipz' of this order and wﬁct [of sucifdeéree of reéieréefiiion 'jifgf;

mortgage shall be conszderea' by the 1'"i':";'.§.i: ;:r2i wf2iie.__a7éa.'§zg 2i«a§iz';'«r the
remizted matrers. Suck exercisef 3115511! be'vAc;€§§1:;; ,?§é£ec2i "Ea; {he Tffézlnéf witlzin

5: period cfsvx morztks thereaﬂer. ' VA

14. In  the earlier srder
in W.P.No.7'}'14?iIQ83::é'ai§;~::'_t9   above referred order. in
View of tm£':,_abm mm-% in W.P.No43G2€)9.e'1993, it is
ebI£gaioIy on   éf tto decide the question reiating to

redem;}ti(}g1'<jf mortgage...  trial court by rightiy feilowing the direction

I-' @'«.}ér: "iﬁs pagsed ﬁre juégxnent on 31.18.2002 decreeing the suit

af'VAti1éx  appeilate court committed an iliegaiity in

 '*!t0i.dingA that theta  under Sazzﬁon 26 of Katnataka Land Revanue Ac':

~  1 'argdyuxder Sc%c:§i§§§n 44 :3? Kmmztaka Lané Reforms Act fer the Big} court to

4:  g(}'.i:fVﬁ5(:.'£§fl.€A3§11€§Sfi0I§ ef redemption ef nizarigagc' This fitzéiﬁg 0f the fewer

V. -aﬁgaeﬂaie €.19'{11'{ is contrary its the direction isszzeci by this war: in

V   P.N0,3{}2£)9f3993. Therefoye, the finding ef the laws: ﬁppeliate Caurf

 £3 Bahia is be setwasider,

OLX.»/L.



E2

15' ﬁle Tria} court on appresiaticvn «of £116 pleadings, 0:31.:

documentary evidence held that the mortgage deed daieci s*.{?L}:£.%.A« V

not redeznced and the first defendant is in pcvssessimz of  sshgdﬁié   M

pmperty as mortgagee. Withuut assigning £II.¥.jA"fﬁ?i$On§.'_'andV"Wiiﬁﬂﬁf re}, 

appreciating the material on record, the Iowa:  

an iliegality in reversing the finding of  it is  
that D.S.S1inivas Iyengar was the owner  plgfint  
Further it is not in dispute that   'A£fJA'.iFi§f$.tfJ";"v.".I:);.Qg:Sfit1i\?aS Iyengar
mortgaged the schedaie Aproperty uz1;¥¢i*.Va  deed dated
22.2.1942 in favour    to the plaintiffs,
they purchased  .;':je5g,'i§tered sale deed dated
28.02.1963   g:»f'Wn':31'ig'nal owner D.S.Srinivas
Iyengas: with  £0 ﬁﬁiﬁiiéage' Awarding to the plaintiifs,

the mertggga, deed  22.2. 1942  not mdeetncd. 0n the other hand,

 éievﬁrst ";1'€::I.'<':1"V1§§.;?tI1i""%'}.4E')3lI%.31'i!d$VVﬁiﬁvﬁlé mortgage deed was racieemed in the

§€22f_ £"3{§5446:,"v«_t:1.1ea»v"V'6ri:g5nj;ai OWT£€:1' paid $112: mortgage: money, {he first

  ,_defen€§a.*;t it1aé¢ ;aﬁ ég2:iferseme31£an the mertgagé deed mid he mfurned the

 gfigﬁnai éecé £G';_Ih$ eriginai awtzer D.S;S1-mivas iyengar. In stzgpart €45

 '»cﬂe;it9e;1t£c:n the first dsfcndani has not placed my documentary

 _e--v4idéiria;e'o'An regard, The firs: defendant had no: calied uyon the iegal

 V  fs$3u3Vf:é1s';entatives of deceased D.S.Srinivas Iyengar to produce the original

 morigaga deeds Even in the cross-axaminatien ef PW-'.1 it is not suggesied

that the crriginai mortgage deed was handed over is D.S«Sr'mivas Iymgar.

d\;*~""



E3

in the written statement the deteiis of payment, the date of payrnen_1,..  

of payment and *3: whose presence are not stated. Further     _

P7 are the reply notices issued by the first defenéiant miéw 

reply notices no deiaiis are ﬁmﬁshed by the   _ T 

redemption of mortgage. The trial cotn1.:fight1y'1=e1V3}'ix1g on  93   V

the Evidence Act held that when  there 'is ;1'ee 
evidence in preef of redemption; ':nortg,age'e§):re§ie1;ee  be pieced on
the orai evédence. In the itnstant   £223  Vietvexeested testimony
of DW.}, there is no   redemption ef
mortgage.   jg iii   ieeeﬂgage {teed dated
22.2.2942 is_.a  iifheneetiiexe is redemption of this
registered tnextgage  "'to be eompuisorily registered

under Section 1'?,_pf  In ihe absence of 3 registered

{ede1n;3tip;i&'ef'mortgague  eral evidence nf DWJ cannot be relied

 'en.    on by the iearned eotmsei for defendants in AIR

1953 :35-"__ZQ4}.Vﬁ}aI1bV_ne.T'Vep§§licatian to the facts of the case. In the gareeeni

 3 V V 'ease the ﬁrst  has faiieé te prove and establish by placing kzgally

~ ~ .f'g:._ee?pLj3b16 Wiéeixee on record that he received meztgage money, made an

  on are erighai mertgage deed and that he returned the

  deed to the ewner -» IT).S.S:~inivas iyengar 'I'i'1erefore the Iaw iairi

  by the Supreme Court in AIR 196$ SC 1041 has no aprplication to

 the faeiis cm band.



£4

16. Further the redemption of mortgage shall be in accardazlee   _

the procedure prescribed under Section 60 of Traztsfer of   V.

The Supreme Com in Chandrakant Shankarrao§{iachale.'Vs;v'  u 

Bhaﬁu Mohite (ﬂaw) through LE3 2008 AA5&4é9$u§?.§l:'é'. :1 A'

of Mortgage dated 28.2.1983 was a registrsted ddctrtttent. '§;"n$'  offla VA

registered document coulé be varied or  mgly   zxtgjswfed
document. A ﬁnding nf fact  the apgsémigx could
not pmve his pcssessicm as a   ivitgéreitzbefere that
the appeilant was putin  at  tvas, therefore, in
our opinion,  from a mortgagtte to
that cf 21 ::»f-- {teed of lease (even if we
assume that ti}: same   .

The1*efGré°in  the Vinstant' czgtie, in the absenca of a segistered

4. discharge«;§gt<:t:tgage  of dcfendzmt that thare is disc.harg<=: of

Airmrtgagse _a::d_tﬁé.ic1  he continued as tenant of the iané in question is

unaéc¢pVii.éfftV1lté.V"'   appeliate wart without exaxnining this legal

A' J  11r€_'§S§€i'iSSi(.'§f:- ctmiﬁiitiéd an illegality in reversaxg the fzmding cf ma} mart.

A'   Ex.P15 is an enécrsesncnt issued by the revenue autlxorities

 ﬁtaziitg  the revenue mcords am not avaiiable for the pseried from 19%»

  1952-53. E.x.P11 to P14 fer the period from 3952 tn 1%?» spccifies

 the name 0f the first éefendatxi as tenant. EXSJ314 tar) 23, the RTC exkacts

fax the pexied ﬁtrm 1943-49, 39612-«£63 specifies as Anuﬁhavdar. Ex.P8 arté

O'\x,~»*"\.»-i



£5

P9 are the index of 13165  the: name of first 

moﬁgagee, Thus there are {me set of revenue records spacifyisgﬁg   :17  1' *

of ﬁmt defendant as 'Anubhavdar' and adqther sea " Of ~  

specifym' g the name of first defendant as :?\Kon;d.§;§'. u"dd'.Ifi1eiéf0I"é;1:V?h¢

revenue enaies in the index of lands and the RTC.§:§£iracts   VA

any assistance: tn the first defendant to shed?  he isdin of the
lands in question as 3 tenani 1:3; as   die Txial
Court rightly concluded that the 'mde'xA_ef Extracts wili be

of no assistance to prqve' «t1w*_' casézof  

13. Ex.13:'t¢:;7 a§ia'1Q:'G:Vddm-ediéﬁé leﬁers wzitta-n by Pw.2 and
the sacend ddfcnddﬁf Vt§1§%ﬁ;~si'«;d:éfe:;1<i'zz1i demanding the rent fmm the
land. In thesedirjttersé therd 'i.*a'A-15110»  of survey number in respect of

lands in quegtian.  the firs: defendant in his avidence

vV..aa:£;;:i1teéV_':t§:atE he was a1xs'dvva::§£iva£i11g sy.no'35 as a tenant under the

 --£3§§¢'£1i31'_ D.S.$£'i.'--:ivas Iyerigar. Therefore, an the baa£s af this

adnai'ss;éi:,d_:he'd'ft§a1%  has rgguiy inferred that the demand of ram

 &1c"'<!ettet:_"véras<:in mpact of sy.n<3.3§ emd net in sezspect sf ﬂue suit

* i."1f&z1d;" gm-:tw§~ 131$ oral ewuenaa of first éefendmzt is interested tztstimonjr.

 Th%"'.YTr;;i:.r¢»;* dppeﬂme cnurt cemmitted an error in rawersing the fmdigrg of

V"  "T531 Court wiﬂxout assigfmg any reasans. For the reasans stated

V V V" _ztuB§;ve the questien of law framed above is held in negative. Acaardingiy,

'dd "  the faiiowingz



I6

ORDER
Appeal is hereby aliowed. The impugxed judgnent and deqrec 9f the ' Ccurt dated 3.12.2905 in is» 'h'$:i*eh3'f aside. 'V V H . H The judgment mad ciecrg the 1 dated 31.13.2602 in Pazﬁes in bear lb 'V Sd/.2 JUDGE
Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Smt Channamma W/O Channaveeregowda vs Sri Kempeeregowda S/O Lingegowda on 23 October, 2009

Author: H N Nagamohan Das

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Smt Channamma W/O Channaveeregowda vs Sri Kempeeregowda S/O Lingegowda on 23 October, 2009

Author: H N Nagamohan Das

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
