Venkatarama Ayyar, J.- This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat dismissing O.S. No. 49 of 1945, which was an action by her to enforce a charge. The facts are not in dispute. One Bava Kutti died leaving behind a son Koyathan and two daughters Bee Pathumma and Sayeed Mal Umma. After the death of Kayathan on 18th October, 1929, his sister Bee Pathumma filed O.S. No. 36 of 1930 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ottapalam for partition of her share in the estate. This suit was transferred to SubCourt, Palghat, and was there numbered as O.S. No. 75 of 1932. The appellant Ammenumma is one of the daughters of Koyathan and was the 3rd defendant in that suit. On 23rd August, 1933, all the parties entered into a razinama, Ex. P-1 and a compromise decree was passed in terms thereof on 4th September, 1933, Ex. P. 6. This decree provides that Bee Pathumma was to take over the share of Ammenumma and pay her in lieu thereof a sum of Rs. 7,333-5-4 within one month and the payment of this amount was charged on the suit properties. The amount not having been paid Ammenumma filed O.S. No. 45 of 1938 on the file of the Sub-Court, Palghat for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,100 as due to her for principal and interest under the decree by enforcement of the charge. The suit was decreed after contest and a preliminary decree was passed on 12th December 1939, Ex. P. 2(a). Under this decree the amount due to the plaintiff as on 12th December, 1939, was declared to be Rs. 11,804-4-0. Clause 2 provided that the 1st defendant Bee Pathumma was to pay this amount with subsequent interest into Court on or before 12th February, 1940, and clause 3 directed that in default of payment the plaintiff was to apply for a final decree for sale of the property. Clause 4 provided that the sale proceeds should be applied in payment of expenses costs and the amounts due to the plaintiff; the balance if any, being payable to the 1st defendant. The other clauses are not material for the purpose of this case. It may be mentioned that the decree does not contain the usual clause for redemption that on payment of the mortgage amount the mortgagee shall deliver the title deeds and if necessary re-transfer the property to the mortgagor and put him in possession of the same. No amount was paid by the 1st defendant and the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 100 of 1941 for the passing of a final decree. That application was dismissed as fresh notice to the defendants was not taken. I.A. No. 843 of 1943 was filed for reviewing the order in I.A. No. 100 of 1941. That was also dismissed on 25th August, 1945. Vide Ex. P. 5. It is after this that the plaintiff has instituted the present suit on 3rd October, 1945, for recovery of the balance amount due under the razinama decree in O.S. No. 75 of 1932, by enforcing the charge created under that decree by sale of the suit property. The plaintiff has given credit for a sum of Rs. 2,516-6-0 received by her under the decree, Ex., P. 2(a) and also for certain other amounts and the balance claimed as due on the date of the suit is Rs. 10,733-2-8. Giving up Rs. 233-2-8 out of this, the claim is made for Rs. 10,500 with subsequent interest and costs. The 1st defendant Bee Pathumma contested the suit on the ground that it was barred by the rule of res judicata by reason of the proceedings in O.S. No. 45 of. 1938 and that it was barred by. limitation. Sayeed Mal Umma, the sister of the first defendant having died prior to the suit, defendants 4 to 7 were impleaded as her legal representatives. They contended that items 36 to 46 in the plaint schedule were allotted to Sayeed Mal Umma free of charge and that the plaintiff had no right to proceed against them. They also put forward various other claims. The 1st defendant having died pending the suit defendants 8 to 13 were brought on record as her legal representatives. The suit was heard by the Subordinate Judge of Palghat who held that the present su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document