MAYANKUTTY Vs. PARUKUTTY AMMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, whose suit for redemption has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge of Parur, is the appellant before me. The short point that arises for consideration is as to whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 122 of the Travancore Limitation Act, corresponding to Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act prior to its amendment in 1929. The Plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 25 -6 -1086, Ext. A, executed by one Meethian who was then holding a kanom right in respect of the properties. Several defences were raised by the defendants as to the right of the plaintiff to redeem, namely, that there was an oral surrender of the mortgage right and, therefore, Ext. A has got itself extinguished. It was also contended that the plaintiff does not derive any title to redeem the mortgage, Ext. A. On both these points, the trial court, as well as the appellate court, have concurrently held against the defendants. The only point on which both the courts have differed is as regards the suit being barred by limitation under Article 122 of the Travancore Limitation Act.

(2.) THE trial court was of the view that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff did not in any way bring the case within the ambit of Article 122; Further, the trial court also held that there is no evidence to show that the defendant's enjoyment as owners was brought to the notice of the mortgagor or his legal representatives. Probably, the latter reasoning of the trial court may not be correct in law.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contentions of both the learned counsels a few dates with reference to the transactions may be useful.