Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
K. CHINNASAMY – Appellant
Versus
RAMATHAL(DIED)1.R.KANDASAMY – Respondent
Mortgage - Possession Relief - Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1972 - Sections 60, 62 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court emphasized the right of usufructuary mortgagors to reclaim possession post-debt discharge, aligning with statutory provisions. The order to dismiss the appeal extended from the interpretation of limitations based on historical mortgage events.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed entitlement to property ownership following the discharge of a mortgage under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, asserting that repossession was justified after a lengthy mortgage period where the original creditors failed to act within legal timelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to reclaim the property as the mortgage debt had been effectively discharged. It reinforced that prior proceedings validated the plaintiffs' claims, underlining the significance of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act in the context of safeguarding mortgagors' rights.
Issues: The key issues included whether the plaintiffs' suit was time-barred under limitation statutes, whether they could exclude prior litigation time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and if the mortgage debt was discharged under relevant agricultural debt relief laws.
Ratio Decidendi: Usufructuary mortgage rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act allow for possession recovery when debt is discharged, asserting that limitation statutes do not impair the ability to reclaim mortgage properties post-discharge.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendants' appeal, affirming the plaintiffs' rights to property possession.
JUDGEMENT
The defendants in the suit O.S.No.64 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Avinashi, (originally O.S.No.357 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur) are the appellants before this Court. The facts which have led to the filing of the above Second Appeal is narrated herein below and for ease of understanding the parties are referred to in their ranking as before the Trial Court.
2. Relief claimed in the plaint:
(a)Declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the respective shares of the suit properties as detailed in plaint and put them in possession of their respective shares, (b)Awarding compensation from the defendants at a consolidated sum of Rs.24,000/- per annum towards the damage and mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of possession is surrendered to the plaintiffs (c)Awarding the costs of the suit to the plaintiff and (d)With other remedies available and Render Justice.
Plaintiffs' case:
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property belonged to one Vedantha Pandithar and Sadasiva Kurukkal. The two of them had executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of Rama Gounder in the year 1943. On 02.02.1976, after the demise of the original mortgagors, their respective legal representatives had sold the suit properties. Item I of the suit property was sold to Ramasamy Gounder son of Periya Rangana Gounder. Item II of the suit property was sold to Ramasamy Gounder son of Appaji Gounder. Item III of the suit property was sold to Karichi Gounder son of Subbana Gounder. Rama Gounder, the mortgagee had two sons Nachimuthu and Kumarasamy. Kumarasamy had two sons, namely, Palanisamy and Ramasamy.
4. The plaintiffs would submit that since 30 years had passed, the mortgage deed was deemed to be wiped out under “Madras Agriculture's Department Relief Act”. Therefore, the mortgagee or his heirs are bound to surrender possession to the mortgagor or their heirs. Meanwhile, the sons and grand sons of Rama Gounder who took possession of the suit property after the death of Rama Gounder and knowing fully well about the sale deed dated 02.02.1976 filed a suit in O.S.No.6 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur for Specific Performance on the basis of an agreement of sale said to have been entered into between Rama Gounder and the original mortgagors against the legal representatives of the original mortgagors and the purchasers, who are the predecessors of the plaintiffs herein.
5. Parallely, O.P.No.39 of 1981 was filed by the predecessors of the plaintiffs for possession. The suit filed by the legal representatives of Rama Gounder was dismissed holding the oral agreement of sale to be false. O.P.No.39 of 1981 was allowed. Challenging the Judgement and Decree in O.S.No.6 of 1981, the plaintiffs therein had filed A.S.No.41 of 1981 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore and they had also filed C.M.A.No.35 of 1982 challenging the order in O.P.No.39 of 1981. The Appellate Court dismissed A.S.No.41 of 1981 and allowed C.M.A.No.35 of 1982 contending that the possession could be taken only by filing a civil suit and after paying ad valorem Court fees. The predecessors of the plaintiffs have not preferred any appeal against the order in C.M.A.No.35 of 1982. As against the Judgement in A.S.No.41 of 1981, the predecessors of defendants / legal representatives of Rama Gounder had filed S.A.No.163 of 1988 which was also dismissed in the year 2001. Therefore, the oral agreement of sale pleaded by the defendants had been rejected and their heirs are therefore bound to surrender possession to the purchasers, the predecessors of the plaintiffs herein.
6. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 claim under Ramasamy Gounder, son of Periya Rangana Gounder to whom Item I was sold, the 7th plaintiff and the 7th defendant claim under Ramasamy Gounder son of Appaji Gounder, who had purchased Item II of the suit property. The 4th plaintiff is the father of the 5th plaintiff and plaintiffs 4 to 6 claim under Karichi Gounder
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
