contend that a reading of Ex.A20 produced by the plaintiffs would show that Arumugam Pillai, has created a mortgage of the suit properties in favour of Varadharajan represented by his mother Amminiammal as guardian on 10.07.1957 and in the absence of any evidence to show the redemption of the said mortgage, the plaintiffs cannot seek a declaration of title against the mortgagee and his legal representatives. Mr.C.R.Prasanan, would also further contend that from the recitals in Ex.A20, it could be gathered that Arumugam Pillai was directed to procure a immovable property worth Rs.2,000/- in the name of the minor son of Amminiammal, viz., the first defendant Varadharajan and Ex.A20 was executed by Arumugam Pillai, agreeing to purchase such property or to pay cash. It is therefore, the contention of Mr.Prasanan, that Arumugam Pillai did not fulfill the obligation thrust upon him under the Will of Ayyammal, dated 25.06.1949 and hence, in order to discharge the pious obligation he had executed the Will dated 12.03.1970 in favour of his sister Amminiammal.
