BHAGAVATHI PILLAI Vs. PONNAMMA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage; and two questions are raised by the appellant, the fourth defendant, who lost in both the lower courts. THE first is that the suit property belonged exclusively to her tawazhi.

(2.) THE main tarwad of the appellant was known as the edamuttathu tarwad. It was partitioned into two branches; and one of the branches had three sub-branches or tavazhies, Kulavarathala, Pulimoodu and kottarakonathu. THE plaintiff-respondents belonged to the first tavazhi; and the appellant and the other defendants belonged to the second tavazhi. THE respondents claimed that they purchased the right of the third tavazhi; and they therefore claimed redemption of two shares out of three of the mortgage and the purakatom. One of the pleas raised by the appellant was that the mortgage and the purakatom were executed by her tawazhi. a partition having taken place in the branch earlier to the mortgage and the purakatom. It is the same contention that is reiterated before me.

(3.) TWO decisions are relied on by the lower appellate court: (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga prosad Chamaria (AIR. 1961 SC. 1236); and (2) the Division Bench ruling of this court in Sankara Pillai Kunjukrishna Pillai v. Ananda Pitta Bharathi Amma (1957 klt. 732 ). The counsel of the appellant draws my attention to the recent Full bench decision of the Madras High; Court in Valliamma Champaka v. Sivathanu pillai (AIR. 1964 Mad. 269 ). The argument of the counsel of the appellant is that Ex. A is not an assignment but only a release, and if so, the acknowledgment therein will not be an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability so as to give a fresh starting point for limitation. If is for this purpose that he relies on the Madras Full Bench ruling.