NARAYANI GOWRI Vs. PARVATHY PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 137/91 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Paravoor, are the appellants. Suit was one for directing the defendant to execute a release deed after receiving contribution towards redemption price from the plaintiffs. The defendant for and on behalf of the thavazhi of the plaintiffs and defendant had redeemed the suit property, which was outstanding on mortgage, pursuant to the execution of a partition deed and the directions contained thereunder, which was entered into by the parties after a final decree had been passed in a suit for partition over the properties belonging to their family viz., Manikazhakam family. The defendant redeemed the property paying the mortgage price of Rs. 500/-, and, later, she had executed a release deed over 4 cents of property in favour of the 8th plaintiff, receiving a sum of Rs. 200/- as the contribution due from that plaintiff. The balance amount due to the defendant towards the sum paid by her to redeem the property is only Rs. 300/-, and receiving such sum, she is bound to execute a release deed over the suit property, was the case of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also alleged that since they are in possession, the relief of recovery of possession is not sought for in the suit. The defendant resisting the suit challenged the reliefs canvassed thereunder on various grounds including the maintainability of the suit as barred by limitation. The case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property was also disputed by the defendant contending that after redemption she continued in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property, and later she had executed a sale deed over the property in favour of her husband. Both the courts below, after evaluating the claim of the plaintiffs to get a release deed executed over the property by the defendant by accepting the contribution due towards the redemption price paid by her, concurrently held that such claim was barred by limitation upholding the contention so raised by the defendant.

(2.) Substantial questions of law formulated on which notice was ordered for hearing are thus:

(3.) Facts covered by the list which are germane for determining the question of limitation are not at all in dispute. Plaintiffs and defendant are members of a family viz., Manikkazhakam family and there was a suit for division of the properties of that family as O.S. No. 107/1121, in which a final decree was also passed. After such decree was passed, the parties reached an understanding and entered into Ext. A1 partition deed dated 27.8.1966. The suit property involved in the present case was allotted to the thavazhi of the plaintiffs and defendant and Ext. A1 deed provided that the members of the thavazhi can redeem their share in that property paying the mortgage price due thereof, and if the mortgage is not so extinguished, any member of the thavazhi on paying the mortgage price in full can get release of the mortgage and in that event, the other sharers paying the contribution due can obtain release of their share in the suit property from the sharer who had got release of the mortgage. The defendant admittedly obtained release of the mortgage paying the redemption price Rs. 500/- under Ext. A2 deed. Ext. A2 is dated 3.3.1969. She had later executed Ext. A6 dated 8.8.1969 releasing 4 cents out of the property redeemed under Ext. A2, to the 8th plaintiff receiving a sum of Rs. 200/- as contribution.