THOMMY JOHN Vs. SIVARAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam in A. S. No. 150 of 1966 remanding the case to the Trial Court for determination of the question whether the defendants are entitled to the benefits under Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 9 of 1967 with reference to the property which the plaintiffs are directed to redeem. The main questions that came up for decision before the learned appellate Judge were (1) whether the suit for redemption which was the second of its kind was maintainable; (2) the competency of the plaintiffs to redeem; and (3) whether the transaction covered by Ext. P1 was a mortgage or a lease.

(2.) On all these questions findings were recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and they were confirmed by the appellate court; the case however had to be remanded for a consideration of the question whether the recent Land Reform Acts had conferred any additional benefits on the defendants and if so, to what extent But the learned counsel for the appellants (defendants 2, 4, 5, 6 & 8) canvassed before me all the above questions and bargained for a decision afresh on those points. I am therefore, compelled to go into those questions over again.

(3.) On the first question namely, the maintainability of the suit learned counsel argued that the right of redemption is barred in view of the fact that a suit of a similar nature was once instituted and a decree was obtained, but the plaintiffs did not care to execute the decree in time with the result that it got barred. Under such circumstances, according to the law then prevalent in Travancore area where the property lies, a second suit was barred. This was the view taken by the Travancore High Court as early as the year 1063 (ME.): vide Raman Keshavan v. Kathiroo Kunju Ooppappa and 3 others (5 TLR 30). There, the learned Judges held that