IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 AS.No. 30 of 1999(B) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS.907/1994 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------- SIVASANKARAN NAIR, S/O.AMMINI AMMA MANNUR PANAYAPPILLI HOUSE VARAVATTOOR DESOM, PALLOOR VILLAGE PALOOR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS- PLAINTIFF/1ST DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHAKUMARI, D/O.JANAKI AMMA VALLUR PERUMBILAVIL HOUSE OTTAPPALAM AMSOM & DESOM PO OTTAPPALAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK 2. BALAN, S/O.CHIRAYIL NANU, DESAMANGALAM VILLAGE & DESOM TALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SMT.C.V.BINDU FOR THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS 30 OF 1999 CMP NO.256 OF 1999 IN AS NO 30 OF 1999 DISMISSED SD/-KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE 08.10.2010 SD/-P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE KURIAN JOSEPH & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ AS No.30 of 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 8th January 2010 Judgment Bhavadasan, J. The second defendant in OS No.907/94 before the Sub Court, Thrissur, is the appellant. He suffered a mortgage decree. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as they are available before the Court below. 2. In the light of the scope of this appeal, the facts which are absolutely necessary for its disposal alone are being referred to in this Judgment. The suit was based on Ext.A1 mortgage deed dated 07.10.1982. The first defendant was the mortgager. The second defendant purchased the rights of the first defendant. The contention of the second defendant in the suit was that he had discharged the debt. However, he failed to prove his contention before the Court below and the suit was decreed. Hence this Appeal. AS 30/99 2 3. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed only one aspect for consideration. It was pointed out that the pendente lite interest and the future interest are considerably high and some leniency should be shown in this regard. 4. It is true that a reading of the mortgage deed shows that the mortgager had agreed to repay the mortgage amount with 18% interest. But, it is well settled that pendente lite interest and future interest are within the discretion of the Court. Normally, pendente lite interest is given at the contractual rate. But, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that a departure needs to be made in this case. We are satisfied that the pendente lite interest of 12% and future interest of 6% will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the decree of the Court below is modified as follows : 5. The plaintiff is given a decree for Rs.1,22,562/- with interest @ 12% for the principal sum of Rs.15,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% till the date of realisation of the amount with costs against the first AS 30/99 3 defendant and also by the sale of plaint schedule mortgaged property. Three months' time is granted to make the payment. The Appeal is partly allowed as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta AS 30/99 4