SANKARAN Vs. KARTHYAYANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 109 of 1983 of the District Court, Alappuzha, which was filed against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 1070 of 1971 of the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala. The plaintiffs before the Trial Court are the appellants herein and the defendant is the respondent. During the pendency of this appeal the third appellant died and appellants 1, 2, 4 and 5 were recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased third appellant. The appellants / plaintiffs filed the above suit for redemption. The brief facts for the purpose of this appeal are the following: The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Kannanthara Makkar. He had executed a mortgage in favour of Sankaran Chettiar, the father of the defendant. Sankaran Chettiar was the karnavan of the family. Sankaran Chettiar acquired the jenmom right also. This Court in A. S. No. 58 of 1982 held that Sankaran Chettiar had only a mortgage right and the right of redemption belongs to his family. As per the partition in the family the right of redemption was allotted to the plaintiff's sakha. Sankaran Chettiar had acknowledged the mortgage transaction. The mortgage right devolved on the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the above suit for redemption.

(2.) The defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable as it is barred by the law of limitation. The Trial Court after taking evidence dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment the plaintiffs filed the above appeal before the District Court, Alappuzha. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment this Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The substantial question of law involved in this case is whether the right of redemption is barred by limitation. At the time of hearing Mr. P.N. Krishnankutty Achan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of limitation is not correct as there is acknowledgement of liability by the mortgagee under Exts. A1, B2 and B3 documents. It is submitted that the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the said documents which relates to acknowledgement of liability by the mortgagee.