Thota Varahalayya (dead) and Others vs Mattapalli Raju and Others

Patanjali Sastri, J.—The petitioner claims to be a lessee under the mortgagor the third defendant in the suit and seeks to file an: additional

written statement raising the plea that the debt due to the plaintiff is liable to be scaled down under the provisions of Act IV 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 written statement must be admitted and the/questions arising

thereon must be determined. This Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed with costs here and below.