KRISHNA PANICKER Vs. SIVASANKARA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are against the orders of remand passed by the lower court in two connected appeals arising out of two suits for redemption of mortgages with respect to two separate portions of the same property. The suit properties belonged to Ayani Madom tarwad. In partition of the said tarwad as per Ext. A1 of the year 1104, Sy. No. 127/1F-5 acres in extent was allotted to the share of one Pennamma. After her death, her legal heirs assigned the property to the plaintiff as per Ext. A11 dated 30-2-1122. The plaintiff executed two mortgages Exts. A5 and A6 in respect of two separate portions of the property. The mortgage rights now vest in the 1st defendant. Both the suits are for redemption of the mortgages Exts. A5 arid A6 and for recovery of possession of the respective portions of the property mortgaged. Defendants 2 and 3 who according to the plaintiff are in possession of the land on the east of the suit properties, are impleaded in both the suits as they are laying claim to portions of land in Exts. A5 and A6 and are attempting to trespass upon the same.

(2.) The 1st defendant admits the plaintiff's title and has no objection in the suits being decreed for redemption and recovery of possession of the properties mortgaged. Both the suits were contested by defendants 2 and 3. According to them they are in possession of 5.47 acres of land after having obtained assignment from other sharers who got the same allotted in partition of Ayani Madom tarwad. The description of the property mentioned in the suit takes in also lands in their possession held under a different title. They deny the plaintiff's title and contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the properties from them.

(3.) Issue 1 in both the suits relates to the identity of the property sought to be redeemed and issue 2 relates to the question as to whether the mortgage deeds had taken effect. Issue No. 3 in both the suits was as to whether the property claimed by the plaintiff is in the possession of defendants 2 and 3, and whether the rights if any of the plaintiff is lost by adverse possession and limitation. On issues 1 and 2, the Trial Court entered the following finding: