Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3984 (MAD)

Jeevatarhinam v. Marimuthu & Others

2009-10-01

S.TAMILVANAN

body2009
Judgment :- 1. The second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2000 passed in A.S.No.76 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.09.1998 made in O.S.No.190 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry. 2. The defendant before the trial court is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs before the trial court, seeking a decree for redemption of usufructory mortgage, dated 25.09.1974 and the suit was decreed as prayed for. 3. By Judgment and Decree, dated 25.09.1998, the trial court granted preliminary decree, which reads as follows : "1. That the defendant do pay into the court on or before the day of .... or any later date up to which the time of payment may be extended by the court the said sum of Rs.4,000/- with interest at....% per annum on Rs.4,000/-from the date of plaint till date of payment. 2. That on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or to such person as he appoints and the plaintiff shall, if so required, reconvey or retransfer the said property free from the mortgage and to clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required deliver up to the defendant quite and peaceful possession of the suit property. 3. 3. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the court or a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part there of shall be directed to be sold and for the purpose of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property. 4. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realised by such sale shall be paid into the court and shall be duly applied (after deduction therefrom the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same. 5. And it is hereby ordered and decreed that if the amount realised by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the term of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance: and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit. " 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the trial court, the defendant in the suit preferred appeal. The first appellate court, by its Judgment and Decree, dated 31.07.2000 made in A.S.No.76 of 1999, confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal without costs. Aggrieved by which, this second appeal has been preferred. 5. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the trial court, the defendant in the suit preferred appeal. The first appellate court, by its Judgment and Decree, dated 31.07.2000 made in A.S.No.76 of 1999, confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal without costs. Aggrieved by which, this second appeal has been preferred. 5. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law : "1. Whether the learned appellate Judge was right in casting the burden of proof on the appellant to show that the respondents have lost their title to the property? 2. Whether the lower appellate court was right in not drawing an adverse inference against the respondents for non-production of the partition deed, dated 03.02.1988?" 6. Substantial Question of Law No.1 : It is not in dispute that the respondents, as plaintiffs have filed the suit, seeking preliminary decree for redemption of the usufructory mortgage, created as per mortgage deed, dated 25.09.1974 for a sum of Rs.4,000/-, the deed was executed by one Mannammal and the plaintiffs in favour of the appellant / defendant, which was registered as Document No.1465-74 before the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret and to direct the cancellation of the same, for delivery of possession of the suit property from the defendant and for costs. In the event of failure of the appellant / defendant to deliver possession of the suit property, pass final decree for delivery under Order XXXIV CPC. 7. It is an admitted fact that the mortgaged property, agricultural lands, were originally belonged to the plaintiffs and their mother, late Mannammal. In order to discharge certain antecedent debts, the respondents and their mother had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the appellant / defendant and created registered usufructory mortgage, by executing the deed, dated 25.09.1974, under which the respondents / plaintiffs agreed to repay the principal amount after 7 years and the appellant was entrusted with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the hypotheca in lieu of interest. In addition to the lands covered by the plaint schedule, the respondents had also executed another usufructory mortgage deed, dated 212. 1974 in favour of the appellant in respect of certain other properties situated in Shanmugapuram in a different village. In addition to the lands covered by the plaint schedule, the respondents had also executed another usufructory mortgage deed, dated 212. 1974 in favour of the appellant in respect of certain other properties situated in Shanmugapuram in a different village. The respondents filed a petition under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act before the learned Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry in O.S.No..2 of 1993 in respect of the mortgage and was ready to repay the principal amount covered by the two mortgage deeds, dated 25.09.1974 for Rs.4,000/-in respect of the suit property and the deed, dated 212. 1974 for Rs.5,000/-in respect of certain other properties in Shanmugapuram, which is not covered by the suit. 8. The respondents filed a lodgment schedule before the trial court to deposit the entire amount of Rs.9,000/- towards the mortgage debts. According to the respondents / plaintiffs, the appellant was not inclined to receive the mortgage amount, hand over the title deeds and to surrender the vacant possession of the suit property as contemplated under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, hence, the suit was filed for redemption of mortgage. 9. According to the respondents, the mortgage deed, dated 25.09.1974 was jointly executed by Mrs.Mannammal and her sons, respondents 1 to 4 herein in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, Mannammal died and the respondents 1 to 4, being her legal heirs, filed the suit against the mortgagee, the appellant herein. It is not in dispute that Mannammals husband having predeceased her, had left his wife Mannammal and the respondents herein alone as his legal heirs, prior to the death of Mannammal and after her death, the respondents / plaintiffs are her legal heirs. 10. In the written statement, the appellant herein had denied the plaint averments saying that the possession of the property was not handed over by the respondents / plaintiffs. According to him, the defence made by the respondents with regard to a sum of Rs.5,000/- borrowed from them was in respect of a different property and also stated that there is misjoinder of cause of action and on that ground pleaded for dismissal of the suit, however, the said defence raised by the appellant / defendant was negatived by the courts below. 11. 11. In the written statement, the appellant has admitted the fact that the respondents / plaintiffs are the owners of the property and they had mortgaged the property along with their mother, but the appellant claimed title to the property by way of adverse possession against the respondents / plaintiffs and further stated that the respondents / plaintiffs are not entitled for redemption of mortgage and on the plea, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 12. After the trial, the trial Court found that there is cause of action for maintaining the suit and held that the plaintiffs have established their case and accordingly, decreed the suit holding that the respondents / plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of redemption of mortgage, as prayed for in the suit. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / defendant submitted that the Courts below have shifted the burden on the appellant against law to establish that the respondents have lost their title to the property and according to the appellant / defendant, the courts below could have drawn adverse inference against the respondents / plaintiffs for non-production of their partition deed. 14. It is pertinent to note that the defendant, who was examined as D.W.1 has admitted the fact that Mannammal, the mother of the plaintiffs had created the suit mortgage along with the respondents / plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that the suit property had originally belonged to the father of the plaintiffs and after his demise, the same was devolved upon his wife, the deceased Manammal and his children, the plaintiffs herein and on 05.09.1974, they had mortgaged the property for a sum of Rs.4,000/-with the appellant / defendant, by way of executing the usufructory mortgage Ex.A.1. According to the appellant / defendant, who was examined as D.W.1, the mortgage could have been redeemed within seven years from the date of mortgage. As the same was not redeemed, the respondents / plaintiffs have no right to get a decree for redemption of mortgage. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs submitted that the defence raised by the appellant / defendant is not legally sustainable, since he has admitted that he is only a mortgagee and the property belongs to the respondents / plaintiffs. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs submitted that the defence raised by the appellant / defendant is not legally sustainable, since he has admitted that he is only a mortgagee and the property belongs to the respondents / plaintiffs. As per the mortgage deed, after the expiry of 7 years, the appellant / defendant could file a suit in order to realise the amount advanced under the mortgage deed and as mortgagee, he could have brought the property for sale, in order to realise the amount paid as consideration under the mortgage deed. However, being the mortgagee, the appellant / defendant is not legally entitled to claim title to the property, by way of adverse possession. It is a well settled proposition of law that once a mortgagee is always a mortgagee and the mortgagee cannot claim title to the mortgaged property, merely on the ground of long possession and enjoyment of the property, by way of adverse possession. Hence, the plea raised by the appellant / defendant against law is not sustainable. 15. The first substantial question of law is that the court below have shifted the burden to establish that the respondents have lost their title to the property on the appellant / defendant. It is an admitted fact that the appellant / defendant is only a mortgagee and the respondents / plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property, that has been admitted by the appellant as mortgagee, hence, there is no question of shifting the burden on the appellant. Being mortgagee, the appellant cannot claim title to the property, by way of adverse possession. Having admitted the title of Mannammal and the plaintiffs, the appellant / defendant accepted the mortgage created by them, hence, it is not open to the appellant / defendant to dispute the title of the respondents / plaintiffs to the property. When they are ready and willing to redeem the mortgage, the appellant / defendant as mortgagee had no other option, except to get back the money advanced by him and hand over the possession of the property, by way of cancelling the mortgage. The appellant / defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property in lieu of interest payable to him, hence, he is only a mortgagee and he cannot claim any other right, except the mortgagee of the property. 16. The appellant / defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property in lieu of interest payable to him, hence, he is only a mortgagee and he cannot claim any other right, except the mortgagee of the property. 16. Considering the well settled legal position, as once a mortgagee is always a mortgagee and also on the admitted facts, I am of the view that the courts below have not shifted the burden on the appellant / defendant, as stated by the appellant / defendant, since the mortgagee cannot claim title to the property by way of adverse possession. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is decided against the appellant / defendant and in favour of the respondents. 17. Substantial Question of Law No.2 : It is an admitted fact that the appellant / defendant was only a mortgagee and the suit property was admittedly owned by Poongavanam, father of the respondents / plaintiffs and after his demise, the property devolved upon his wife Mannammal and the respondents / plaintiffs, being his legal heirs and after the demise of Mannammal, only the respondents herein became the absolute owners of the property and that had been mortgaged by them along with their mother. 18. When the mortgage is subsisting, the appellant / defendant remains only a mortgagee and he cannot claim title to the mortgaged property, by way of adverse possession. The non-production of the alleged partition deed dated 03.02.1988 has no relevance in this case, since the appellant / defendant as mortgagee has admitted the title of the respondents / plaintiffs, by accepting the mortgage created by the respondents and their mother. Appellant, being a party to the mortgage deed, Ex.A.1 cannot dispute the document and the title of the respondents / plaintiffs. 19. As contemplated under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence, Act, it is clear that admission needs no proof. In the instant case, the appellant / defendant has admitted the title of the respondents / plaintiffs, being the mortgagee, hence, he cannot made an unsustainable claim by disputing the title of the respondents / plaintiffs and ask the court to draw adverse inference on account of the non-production of the alleged partition deed of the respondents / plaintiffs. In the instant case, the appellant / defendant has admitted the title of the respondents / plaintiffs, being the mortgagee, hence, he cannot made an unsustainable claim by disputing the title of the respondents / plaintiffs and ask the court to draw adverse inference on account of the non-production of the alleged partition deed of the respondents / plaintiffs. Being the mortgagee under Ex.A.1, the appellant is legally estopped from disputing the title of the respondents / plaintiffs to the suit property, hence, the appellant / defendant cannot raise a defence, based on his plea of non-production of the alleged partition deed of the respondents / plaintiffs and also ask the court to draw adverse inference on the ground of non-production of a partition deed, hence, the second substantial question of law is also decided against the appellant / defendant and in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs. 20. In the decision, T.Anjanappa vs. Somalingappa and another reported in 2006 (7) SCC 570 : 2007 (7) MLJ 911, the Honble Apex Court has held that adverse possession really means the hostile possession, which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession, the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner for a statutory period. The Honble Apex Court has held in paragraph 22 as thus: "22. It is well-recognised proposition of law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession, which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession, the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owners title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the formers hostile action." 21. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the formers hostile action." 21. In the decision, Annakili vs. A.Vedanayagam and others, reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 1494 : 2008 (1) LW 69 (SC), the Honble Apex Court has formulated the principles to ascertain adverse possession at page number 1500 in the decision reported in MLJ as follows : "22. Claim by adverse possession has two elements: (1) the possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and (2) the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well-settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must continue in the said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more does not ripen into a title." 22. As per the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court of India, claim by adverse possession has two elements (1) that the possession of the defendant who claims adverse possession should have become adverse to the right of the plaintiff and (2) the defendant must continued to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. To claim adverse possession, the possession must have animus possidendi, hence, the mortgagee in possession and enjoyment of an immovable property under an usufructory mortgage may have possidendi as mortgagee, however, that would not be animus possidendi, since the mortagee is in possession of the property, by virtue of the fact that he got the right as mortgagee, Similarly, a tenant, lessee, licensee or permissive occupier to the property cannot claim, so long as they enjoy the property in respective capacity. 23. 23. It is well settled that the person, who claims adverse possession should plead and establish his claim in the manner known to law. In the instant case, the appellant got the possession and enjoyment of the immovable property by virtue of the mortgage deed marked as Ex.A.1. He has not specifically stated what date or period. There is no relationship of mortagee and mortgagor between himself and the respondents. There is no evidence to show that the appellant / defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property for a period of 12 years having animus possidendi. There is no evidence to show that the relationship between the appellant / defendant and the respondents / plaintiffs came to an end as mortgagee and mortgagors at any point of time. In such circumstances, it can be legally construed that the appellant / defendant has no animus possidendi at any point of time. Even in the case of any animus possidendi, the appellant, who is claiming title by way of adverse possession has to establish that the animus possidendi enjoyed by him is for a period of 12 years, for which there is no evidence. Therefore, the plea of the appellant / plaintiff claiming title by way of adverse possession if totally erroneous and against law. 24. Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows: 58.Facts admitted need not be proved _ No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings : Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, required the facts admitted to be provided otherwise than by such admissions. 25. In the instant case, the appellant has admitted the fact that Mannamal, the mother of the respondents and the respondents had jointly executed the said usufructory mortgage in favour of the appellant / defendant. 25. In the instant case, the appellant has admitted the fact that Mannamal, the mother of the respondents and the respondents had jointly executed the said usufructory mortgage in favour of the appellant / defendant. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the appellant / defendant is enjoying the property only by virtue of the usufructory mortgage created by the respondents and therefore, as per the deed, the appellant / defendant has categorically admitted the title of the respondents / plaintiffs and their mother and also the fact that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property only as a mortgagee. When the respondents / mortgagors were ready to redeem the mortgage and approach him for redemption, the appellant / defendant was not inclined for the redemption. The defence raised in the suit and the appeals by the appellant / defendant is contrary to law, hence, the same cannot be accepted. 26. It has been clearly established by oral and documentary evidence that the respondents / plaintiffs, being the mortgagers are entitled to a decree for redemption, as prayed for and the courts below have properly held that the respondents / plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought for in the suit, which cannot be construed as perverse, as the finding is based on evidence. As there is no error or infirmity in the impugned Judgment and Decree, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference by this Court in the Second Appeal, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 27. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.