Where two suits having a common issue are tried together and disposed of by a single judgment or by two judgments, one incorporating the other there is in substance only one trial and one verdict and there is no question of a party being vexed twice over the same matter.

GOPLARAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother Obul Reddi J. given in Appeal No. 446 of 1961 on 1/08/1967 whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suits.

( 2 ) THE material facts in order to understand the arguments raised before us may briefly be stated. The plaintiff. who is the appellant before us, instituted O. S. No. 75 of 1960 alleging inter alia that out of his own earnings he advanced various sums of money to Rajeswari Amma, the 2nd defendant. He first advanced on 30-12-1942 a sum of Rs. 3,000 and the 2nd defendant executed a registered unufructuary mortage in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently on 29-3-48 he advanced Rs. 3,000. 00. On 7-5-1950 he advanced Rs. 2,000. 00 and on 7--1951 advanced Rs. 2,000/- and for all the three loans, Rajeswari Ammal, the 2nd defendant, executed three mortgage deeds separately. The mortage deeds were taken in the name of the 3rd defendant. who is the wife of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was advised that the three simple mortgage deeds should not be taken in his own name as it might involve some complications. The plaintiff therefore took all the three deeds in the name of his wife although the loans were advanced by him.

( 3 ) WHILE, so trouble arose between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant when the plaintiff demanded return of the money advanced by him. The plaintiff filed a suit on one of the mortage deeds dated 7-5-1950 executed by the 2nd defendant benami for the plaintiff. The plaintiff bore the costs of the suit.

( 4 ) IN the mean while, the 2nd defendant mortgagor sold the schedule mentioned properties to the 1st defendant on 22-7-1959 for Rs. 12,590/0. subject of course to all the mortgages. The plaintiff thereupon issued a notice to the 1st defendant on 29-7-1959 informing that the real person to receive the money is the plaintiff on account of all the four mortgages and not the 3rd defendant. That 1st defendant. however, gave a reply on 1-8-1959 that in regard to three mortgages the money is payable only to the 3rd defendant.

( 5 ) THE suit, which was instituted by the plaintiff in the name of his wife in regard to the mortage of 7-5-1950, was pending. The plaintiff learnt that the 3rd defendant was trying to compromise with the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 135 of 1959.

( 6 ) WITH these allegations the plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that the mortage money due under the three mortgages standing in the of the name the 3rd defendant is solely and exclusively payable to the plaintiff alone and not to the 3rd defendant. He also asked for the issue of an injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from recreating and defendants 1 and 2 from paying any portion of the debt to any one else other than the plaintiff.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff also instituted O. S. No. 34 of 1960 for the recovery of the amount due on the three mortgages standing in the name of his wife against the mortgagor and the purchaser from her. He impleaded his wife as the 3rd defendant in that suit also.

( 8 ) THE 1st defendant in his written statement contended that the purchased the property covered by the four mortgages from the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed. He purchased the same subject to the mortgages. Soon after the purchase he paid off on 4-8-1959 the amount due on the simple mortage dated 7-5-1950 to the 3rd defendant and obtained a receipt from her. The suit, which was filed for the enforcement of that mortage, i. e. . to say O. S. No. 135 of 1959. was thereupon dismissed on suit the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 522 of 1959 requesting the Court to impaled him as a party. It was, however, dismissed on 16-10-59. The application I. A. No. 492 of 1959, which was failed by the 1st defendant to impaled him, was allowed on 24-9-1959.

( 9 ) IN regard to the usufructuary mortage dated 30-12-1942 the contention of the 1st defendant was that he filed an application O. P. No. 28 of 1959 on the file of the Distric

Click Here to Read the rest of this document