H- {Ho§r¢$ 3E£9 suyvxcxaxm;
-1-
IN ram HIGH coax? OF KARNATAKA AT sanaaiaan
BATED wars was 9" BAY GE SEPTEMBE33 $fi5& Vu
PRESENT N
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L-gAKgy§fiA3swAmg."g
REA No.1oé1f2ée3
smwwnmm: . w
1 sax T B sunmsa 9X0'? 3 BYREVGGWBA ';
54 YRS, 5/0 1 B Bzg$'acwaA * 9
cnmnaa RANK a.; L sscrzou xx
aanaaneas cxacng QFEiCE* «A7.
M G RQAD, aANGA;c£E»'J M -fav;
. .m__=,'.A¢ '",.3 APPELLANT
{BY sRI.z&x§:Kia.fivM$R;s$A£r agv: FOR SOUTHERN
Law A3s¢cIA$Esy¢ ',.fi~ = =5 '
1Qsmrmmwx< _~.
*w7c_s aAJa§mA_'u_.
A&Efl»ABGUTYé5 $35
R/OLNO 76;e;.:~ckoss
* AxJAnaxA"TEMLE smnnmm
=.;?EQIYAR"a-.y .....
"EANGALGRE 1
RESPGNDENT
"VERA FILED U/5.96 OF CPC AQAINST THE JUDGMENT
=_' ARE nncnmm mw.15.1.0s Passmn xx o.$.H0.1634/00 on
~;',mH2. FILE ow was xxv ABEL. army cxvxn snags,
avxanaazons (can-23}, nxsmmssxna run svzw FOR
FQS3ESSION, namaags AD you MESNE yaorxms.
TEES REA COMING ON FOR KEARING TRIS EEX, THE
COURT MADE THE FQLLQWING: * , g g
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the in “Os
§s’fo.1634/2000 on the file
Civil Judge, Banga.1ore.; _
2. The plaintiff su.;i..t’ f:c.;;:*vAV:1_;5osaessiran
af the suit Sf.’.’–‘.1’u’;.|,._;¢V:°°’.1’£.3.’J.3′”»V.f’% and also for
damages of gs.8,oo.a,?_5–.. t;iic; j:;%$+;;~;:§’iod from 3.»-11-~
1.999 to s’1″3:;’js.£:-;2q;£.w;e.€ case that he
purchasélfl s$he;iai e pzraperty bearing
Na” ,” * Tamale Road, Yediyur,
BangLé1.l$§e Vendor Stat Laiitha under a
registérea” da.tecI.1?–6»-1992. As an the
€f?’.Ja4;i’3′:?«8:V_’p’§:1′:€’A¢A:’i1’1;:3:”..v.’:£’~.4EE!’,’,’ the defendant was in occupation
‘ ; ‘r:.’>.f:”V t;1_:.éa $1i’it_ fichedule property as a mcnzttgageze in
H ‘ ‘«t.:.e:a:.*z’r:v.S: unregiatered zmrtagaga deed dated 15»-
7?t3.9s1V9.”‘é;£tex his purchase, he paid. n.s.5a,ooo/-
AA ‘.’.’..<§.'f tiie defendant towarcfis rmrtgage asmtant and the
""V_vvéixa:£"endant gave him back the eriginal mortgage
«-fcleeci and alao yrcxznised ta deliver the poasession.
%
-3-
Sinaa the defendant did not stand by his yrqmise,
the plaintiff issued a zegal notime gé§*in the
reply the defendant has stated that §fiegp@éinfiiff_
has not paid Rs.50,000[~W-anal §$” s#ch}Vthe k
poaaession was not delivered} Reade aha §%géent
suit$
3. on issuange 5f*:fig£ige, ‘£fié” defendant
entared aypeara#@é ‘ afl&; :fiiigfi ; the written
statament.d3§ying{¥%¢§ip§ §fi fisggé,00G/- fram the
plaintiffL iU:§’ %%u §§fi£hgr stated that the
p;a;n:;;£.§5& big fi§fiaa%_h$ve colluded with each
othfi; .a§fi fi;fificfif<fi§ayifig R5.50,000f~ they have
co1leét%dtfié:5§i§£fi#i mortgage deed fram him. He
has? " furt1V1e5::'${:at: eac1 that he is in possession cof
a"'_£fié fifihédgle property as a tenant.
' fl$@®mmtawewnmfiflem@tfium
tfia '®ri£ten statament, tha defendant has not
"A5fiepfiéd into the witness box. He has further
' sufim1tted that he has issuad a legal natice to
whiah the raspandamt has replied by nofiice dated
,4-
12-11»-1999. In the said reply also it 1:;’ér5gbeen
atated that she is a nmrtgagee in tgxmfl 5f the
mortgaga deed dated 15~?~1989.
5. On thase pleadifiqa, ‘tfig{ ¢ouxtg b$lbw =
framad an issue to _the >effect wfiéfihék “the
plaintiff prcnvas tha’tv.’t:he ‘d«a£’en’aa£iv%:: is in
po&sessian af fitge rééh¢fiuié¢A prfifiéfiy as a
mortgagee.
5. behalf off the
plaintifi’ ;j.efenaa.nt has amutted
tha§ fié”i$_§3#p§§g§geg;w£fie question of fxaming
an does not arise. While
as$ign£§g”r&§$dn§V”£a issue No.1, it has been
xéfexfiefi. bi “t§a* caurt below that the mortgage
‘D6a@d émte£ad into between the defendant and the
1″ w }§m:1c1§$r”.”¢;£ ‘T:ti1e plaintiff reflacts the intention of
$55 ‘pax£ies that it was abtaiaed as security
V’*flQwafid$ certain amnunt paid by the defendant. It
further held that if the said. annunt is
–7mpa.~:.c2. by the plaintiff, on behalf cf his vendor,
,5-
the alleged transaction of nnrtgage ac::rses”= t:o an
enfi and right of tenaazay survives . .._-gghe:
plaintiff has failed. to establish
is in pcsseasian of the’ -.a;u:i’_t Véfirigpértgr ..a.s <
mortgagee. The framing jff"%é,a_.s
unnecesaary fm: the ' _;§'aa§§soz£x'v- –vVwz.".%. Vtifié
canmntmn of tne__p1a1n_t_-,§;'££'_ t3;at.'t2§.»a=-§v A¢1g§?encza;1t 1:5
31.33 pamaession «afA'«… :i.?;e:'A.V_L as a znortgagae.
The defe:1urt, the defendant though
segrvegi has”~1feiha.i::}ad absent and serviae to him was
fiiffiicient. He has not prcduaed any
ub:»g:’Ecnre this court which would go againat
a..:J1>’.é§i.-iéant.
“S. In the facts and circuxnatances of thia
“‘._V«’c’::a.’.éI§e, this appeal is allowed. The order passed
by the court; below is set aside. The defendant
.5.
:;.a directed to hanci over physical passesgion cat’
the land in question tn the plaintiff w;it,r_g;;;i~.._£oux~
months from the date nf receipt of a
order .
T