Thota Varahalayya vs Mattapalli Raju

Patanjali Sastri, J.—The petitioner claims to be a lessee under the mortgagor defendant 3 in the suit and seeks to file an additional written statement raising the plea that the debt duo to the plaintiff is liable to be scaled down under the provisions of Act 4 of 1938. The Court below has refused to grant leave to file the additional written statement on the ground that the suit by the plaintiff as usufructuary mortgagee to recover possession was not one to enforce the debt and so no question of scaling it down could arise. Mr. Somasundaram for the petitioner however points out that he is entitled to redeem the plaintiff''s usufructuary mortgage by virtue of the lease alleged to have been obtained from the mortgagor subsequently to the plaintiff''s mortgage and is thus interested in raising the question as to the true amount payable to the plaintiff. This contention is correct and must be upheld. It follows that the petitioner''s additional writ-ton statement must be admitted and the questions arising thereon must be determined. This civil revision petition is therefore allowed with costs here and below.