SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Kar) 48

Karnataka High Court
NARAYAN PUNNAPPA KHILARE - Appellant
Versus
SRIPAD GANGADHAR SABANNAVAR - Respondent
Decided On : 01-19-95
R.S.A. : 112 of 1985

Advocates:
B.V.RAMA MURTHY, R.B.DESHPANDE, S.K.Joshi

H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) AND decree dated November 9, 1984, delivered by Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984, dismissing the first appeal of the defendant-appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 14th December, 1983 given in Original Suit No. 206 of 1976, by the First Additional munsiff, Belgaum, whereby the Trial Court decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of the mortgaged property and for future mesne profits. The plaintiff-respondent filed the above mentioned Regular suit for redemption of mortgage with the allegations to the effect as contained in the plaint that plaintiff-respondent is and has been the adopted son of one Smt. Tulsabai w/o Gangadhar sabannavar. The plaintiff's case is that Smt. Tulsabai referred to above died on August 7, 1971, leaving behind her, the plaintiff-the only son and heir entitled to succeed her. The plaintiff further alleged that during her life time Smt. Tulsabai had taken a sum of Rs. 2,200/- from the defendant on security of the house for her maintenance and family needs. According to the plaint case, on the death of Smt. Tulsabai, the plaintiff succeeded to the property of Tulsabai. Plaintiff further alleged that having taken loan from defendant on security of the house, the plaintiff-respondent's mother namely Smt. Tulsabai executed a mortgage deed in favour of defendant-appellant namely narayan Punnappa Khilare. The plaintiff claim that since after the death of Smt. Tulsabai, plaintiff has stepped into the shoes of Smt. Tulsabai and as such he is entitled to redeem the mortgage and to get the property of Tulsabai, which had been mortgaged by her in favour of the defendant-mortgagee namely the appellant. In paragraph-2 of the plaint, the plaintiff has given the particulars of the mortgage as under: the date of mortgage is alleged to be 11th July, 1962 and 4th march, 1966. The name of the mortgagor has been mentioned as smt. Tulsabai Gangadhar Sabannavar, deceased and succeeded by her legal heir - Shripad Gangadhar Sabannavar i. e. , the plaintiff-respondent. The name of the mortgagee is mentioned as narayan Punnappa Khilare. The sum secured under the mortgage is mentioned as Rs. 2,200/- (Rs. 1,500 + Rs. 700 ). With reference to the rate of interest it is mentioned, being possessory mortgage the mortgagee is to enjoy the mortgaged property in lieu of interest as per the deed of mortgage dated 11-/-1962 and has to get interest at 9 per cent per annum as per the mortgage deed dated 4-3-1966 on the sum of Rs. 700/ -. Period of mortgage mentioned is five years. The property mortgaged has been mentioned as house bearing No. CTS-204 A and B, situated within the limits of Khade Bazar, Shahapur, Tel. Belgaum. The plaintiff has further alleged in the plaint para-3 that the property in suit having been mortgaged with possession by plaintiffs predecessors in title for a total sum of Rs. 2,200/- to the defendant and as the plaintiff has inherited and succeeded the property and interest of the deceased mortgagor and the defendant being in possession as mortgagee and enjoying the property as such, the possession of the suit property is to be handed over back to the plaintiff free from all suit mortgage encumbrances, after payment of the mortgage money and that the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the amount due under the aforesaid mortgage. The plaintiff has further'alleged that plaintiff made a request to the defendant to accept the said mortgage amount and release the property from the mortgage encumbrances and to hand over the actual possession thereof to the plaintiff. But the defendant on one pretext or other postponed and avoided the same and finally in the last week of april, 1976, when the money was tendered with a request to the defendant to deliver the possession of the suit property, the defendant did not do so. According to the plaintiff as such the need for filing the suit for redemption of suit prope



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top