B 1 was executed by his mother during his absence was number true as a he himself had purchased the necessary stamps, b he had signed the document as an identifying witness, and c the evidence adduced by Mm that he was number present at that time was unacceptable 5 that in a deposition.
He purchased the said site for Rupees 8,000 and built thereon the said house.
His final companyclusion was that the sale deed Ex.
B 1, in favour of the defendants father mentioning therein Rs.
6 that the sale was valid and effective inasmuch as it was made by the mother who held the title in the property.
3,000 and executed three different documents of mortgage.
30,000 as the companysideration for the sale.
225 of 1969 hereinafter for brevity sake called the plaintiff.
A 1 upon which the plaintiff himself had heavily relied.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants father, and after his death the defendant, had in all companylected Rupees 36,556.10 np.
The plaintiffs mother died in 1354 Fasli, leaving her surviving the plaintiff as her sole heir and legal representative.
B 4 given by him in an earlier proceeding, he had admitted that his mother had at first mortgaged and later on sold the property, and that he had numbertitle n it.
The mortgage amounts on all the three occasions were paid to his mother in the presence of the Sub Registrar before whom the mortgage deeds were registered 4 that the plaintiffs companytention that the sale deed.
B 1 executed by the plaintiffs mother alone, al though the plaintiff was present at that time and had in fact signed the document as a witness identifying his mother, she being a. pardanashin lady.
4,000 and Rs.
On this view he dismissed the suit.
Upon that evidence, the Trial Judge gave the following findings That both the site and the house built thereon belonged to the plaintiffs mother 2 that the fact that permission to build the house was issued by the municipal authorities in the plaintiffs name and the fact that the assessment register showed his name in the companyumn for persons responsible for payment of municipal taxes did number mean that the plaintiff was the owner of the house and the site 3 that the fact that the plaintiff was also made the executants of the mortgage deeds did number prove his title or his mother as his benamidar.
He also denied that the sale deed, Ex.
B 1, there was numberlonger any subsisting mortgage on the basis of which redemption or accounts companyld be claimed, and that therefore, the suit was misconceived.
15,000 being the mortgage debt and another sum of Rs.
15,000, in.
If the sale evidenced by that deed was real, there, obviously, companyld be numbersubsisting mortgage thereafter and numbersuit, for redemption companyld possibly lie.
The plaintiffs case further was that the sale deed was fictitious and was never intended by the parties thereto to operate and being without companysideration also was void and of numbereffect.
On December 19, 1938, the defendants father, knowing that he had acquired numbertitle under the said deed and on protest made by the plaintiff, executed a document, Ex.
In the appeal filed by the plaintiff in the High Court against the dismissal of his suit, the High Court pointed out that the real companytroversy between the parties turned on the sale deed, Ex.
21,572.65 np.
A 1 were clear and unambiguous and being against his own interest companyld number but be accepted.
A 1 was a genuine document.
Even if the sum of Rs.
A 1, admitting that the said sale deed was fictitious, that he was in possession of the house as the mortgage only and that he, and after him his heir, would restore it to the plaintiff on satisfaction of the said mortgage debt.
A 1 was genuine.
1723 of 1988.
15,000 said to have been paid in cash, though it was never paid and was shown as part of the companysideration only to avoid a charge that the said sale was companylusive.
Be, was joined as a companyexecutant of those mortgages, as the property stood in her name as his benamidar and also as and by way of abundant caution.
The statements made by the defendants father in Ex.
Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence.
His mother, Malan.
30,000 as the companysideration for the sale.
It is against the decree for redemption that the defendant has filed C. A. No.
To save the house from that claim, the plaintiffs mother executed a sale deed, Ex.
addition to the mortgage amount, was number paid, failure to do so would number affect the validity of the sale, the remedy therefore being a suit to recover the unpaid purchase price 7 that in view of the evidence of the two legal practitioners, Abdul Wahab P.W. 2 and Dinkar Rao, P.W. 8 whose evidence that they were the attesting witnesses to the document Ex.
According to the plaintiff, Ms second wife, Yaseen Be gum laid claim over the said house in lieu of dower due to her.
That amount, according to the sale deed, companysisted of Rs.
Having run into debts while companystructing it, he borrowed from the defendants father three sums, Rupees 8,000, Rs.
15,000 was number paid to the plaintiffs mother.
A 1 and that the defendants father had executed that document in their presence and which companyld number be discredited, the document Ex.
It is somewhat strange that though the defendants father had been careful enough to have made both the plaintiff and his mother execute the mortgage deeds, he was companytent to have the sale deed Ex.
The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was the owner of the mortgaged house in question and the site on which it was companystructed.
The suit for redemption, therefore, was misconceived and the proper suit would have been one for specific performance of reconveyance of the property in suit to the plaintiff.
15,000 had been paid to and received by the plaintiffs mother, thus making Rs.
B 1 being valid, the said mortgages became merged in the sale, and there were numbersubsisting mortgages.
The sale deed, numberdoubt recited the three mortgages for the total amount of Rs.
15,000, and also that another sum of Rs.
1723 of 1968 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
M. Shelat, J. These two appeals founded on a certificate, are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which it reversed the dismissal by the Trial Court of a suit for redemption filed by the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
