GOVINDA PILLAI Vs. MATHEVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and recovery of possession of one item of property in the plaint schedule is the appellant.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for deciding the case are thus: THE plaint schedule property four in number were mortgaged by the plaintiffs father and four others as per Ext. A1 otti deed dated 9-11-1100 M. E. in favour of defendants 1 to 4. On partition among the mortgagors as per Ext. A2 partition deed dated 12-3-1104 M. E. the equity of redemption of item No. 2 in the plaint schedule was allotted to the share of plaintiffs father exclusively. Later the plaintiff s father executed Ext. A3 puisne mortgage in favour of the plaintiff authorising him to redeem item No. 2 on payment of the proportionate mortgage money. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of Ext. A3 for redemption and recovery of plaint item No. 2. It was alleged in the plaint that in respect of other items of the properties excluding item No. 2 the mortgage stood extinguished and as such the plaintiff is entitled to partial redemption of the mortgage in so far as item No. 2 is concerned.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement disputing the right of the plain tiff to redeem the property on the basis of ext. A5. They questioned the validity of Ext. A3 mortgage also. It was further contended that the mortgage has not become split up and as such the suit is not maintainable. They also contended that the suit is barred by limitation since it has been filed long after 12 years from the date of execution of Ext. A3 mortgage.