RAMALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. SEENIYA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by 7th defendant in the suit. There are two questions which arise, viz. , whether Article 61 (a) or 61 (b) of the Limitation Act of 1963, applies to the present proceedings, and if Article 61 (b) is held to apply, whether the suit is within time.

(2.) THE facts are in a short compass. One Madathi Ammal purchased the suit property measuring 1 acre 98 cents for Rs. 800 on 15-7-1922 under Ex. B-3. She executed a usufructuary mortgage of this property in favour of her sister meenakshi Ammal on 26-11-1928 for Rs. 500/- under Ex. B1. It was provided in the usufructuary mortgage deed that the time for redemption was by 30th adi, 1105 M. E. (14-8-1930) and that if the mortgage was not redeemed by then, the property would become the absolute property of the mortgage. The mortgage was not redeemed by 14-8-1930 and the mortgagee Meenakshi ammal sold the said property in 18-8-1933 to one Karuppaswami under Ex. B 4. Karuppuswami executed a gift deed in favour of the 7th defendant on 6-61968 under Ex. B-2.

(3.) MADATHI Ammal executed a gift deed on 2-10-1970 covering the same property in favour of her son, the plaintiff. She died within a few days thereafter. The plaintiff filed the suit, after her death, for a declaration that the property belonged to him in view of the discharge of the othi deed dated 26-111928 and for recovery of possession from the defendants. Defendants 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of Meenakshi Ammal and defendants 7 to 8 are the daughters of the purchaser Karuppaswami.