203 04/80 which were heard together and disposed, of by a companymon judgment wherein the High Court set aside the judgment of the lower appellate companyrt wherein the lower appellate companyrt had directed, the remand of the matter to the trial companyrt.
Additional 4th defendant in Original Suit No.
77 and 78 of 1978, just before these two appeals were disposed of, filed I.A. 151/80 claiming that he is also entitled to fixity of tenure in his capacity as a tenant under the provision companytained in Section 4A i a .
412/65 died and additional defendants 3 to 12 were impleaded as legal representatives.
720/80 was filed against the decision in A.S. No.
The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that Kochu Kunju Narayanan was the owner of the two items of property mentioned in Schedule A and B. He mortgaged all these properties.
First defendant was directed to pay Rs.
By Ext.
The main companytention raised by the appellant in the second appeal is that on the ground of res judicata as it is clear that the three suits involving the same properties having companymon issues were tried and decided by a companymon judgment with specific findings on issues involved in all the three cases.
412/65 who was the appellant in A.S. Nos.
412/65.
412/65 inherited the mortgage right from his father Raman Nadar who was the assignee mortgagee.
31 and 33 of 1969.
412/65 who is also the first defendant in Original Suit No.
In the companymon final decree in the three cases the finding is that Ext.
Plaintiff was directed to pay 1/3rd of the mortgage amount and value of improvement from the year 1085 to 17.1.1953 which is the date of the sub mortgage.
A and B schedule properties were allowed to be partitioned, plaintiff in Original Suit No.
412/65 who is one of the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant filed A.S. Nos.
Regarding B schedule property the plaintiff was directed to pay 1/3rd of the mortgage amount and value of improvements regarding 1/3rd share to the second defendant in Original Suit No.
These appeals arise out of a judgment passed by the High Court, of Kerala in Second Appeal No.
The 1st defendant in Original Suit No.
412/65 getting 1/3rd share and the 1st defendant in that case getting 2/3rd share.
A companymon preliminary decree was passed in all the three cases on 28.9.1968.
2,500/ which is the sub mortgage amount plus value of improvements in respect of the 2/3rd share from 17.1.1953 to redemption.
412/65 was tried as the main case in which all the evidence was recorded.
720/80 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.
D1 is only a sub mortgage and the junction of the husband of the mortgage who is also owner of the equity of redemption will number change the character of the document.
All the three cases were tried together and Original Suit No.
Leave granted.
D9 of the year 1082 which is an assignment of the mortgage right regarding a portion of the property namely properties mentioned in Schedule A, the predecessor in interest of the first defendant got assignment.
404/65 was also filed by him 1st defendant in Original Suit No.
403/65.
It was for redemption of Ext.
Plaintiff and 1st defendant were found entitled to get damages regarding plaint B schedule property.
That claim was accepted by the appellate companyrt and both the cases were remanded for companysideration of the claim under Section 4A i a .
68/78.
Second Appeal No.
412/65 and the decision in the other two cases were number appealed against and it was on this basis that before the High Court the question of res judicata was raised and it was accepted.
He claimed fixity of tenure under Section 4A i a of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969.
By Ext.
