AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiff appeals against the decree of the lower Court directing redemption. He raises four points for our consideration, the first relates to the rate of interest on the rent awarded, the second to the award of rent for item 10, the third to the personal liability cast upon the plaintiff for the rent and the last and the fourth relates to costs.
The facts are short. There was a mortgage in the year 1111 (Ex. I) which was followed by a lease back (Ex. III. The title to the equity of redemption and also the right under the lease devolved upon the plaintiff by transfer. The lease deed stipulates for payment of 12 per cent, interest upon the overdue rent. The contention as regards the rate of interest is that as from 1-2-1116 interest in excess of 4 per cent, cannot be awarded under S. 12, Travancore Debt Relief Act, 2 and 3 of 1116. The answer to this is afforded by cl. (d), S. 4 (Act 2 of 1116) which provides that :
(d). any liability arising out of any transaction in the nature of a lease including a Kanapattom as defined in the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of 1071 or any Michavarom or other dues due to an Edavagai by virtue of the provisions of the Travancore Edavagai Act, or any Thiruppuvaram.
shall not be affected by the provisions of the Act. The interest in question relates to interest due on the rent as per the lease. Ex. II. The matter appears to us to be clear beyond doubt. The conclusion reached by the Court below that rent under Ex. II is one not hit by the Debt Relief Act is correct. The second point urged before us, is that no rent may be given for item 10 because though the mortgage relates to all the ten items, the suit relates only to 9 items. There is no point at all in this argument because the mortgage and the lease are entire transactions and what is sought to be redeemed is the property from the obligations of both the mortgage and the lease. No question arises as to particular items. Why item 10 is not within the ambit of the suit was not made clear to us.
So far as the personal liability is concerned the point made is that the judgment does not give personal liability but that the decree grants it. Learned counsel for the respondents agrees that there is this divergence between the judgment and the decree and that it cannot be supported. The decree will be made in conformity with the judgment and the plaintiff will not be made personally liable for the arrears of rent.
The next point urged is as regards costs. The Court below adhered to the ordinary rule that in a suit for redemption the mortgagee is entitled to costs. No reason has been shown to us why we should depart from that rule.
The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.