IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 RSA.No. 689 of 2003() -------------------------------- AS.104/1992 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.1427/1987 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS/ BONAFIDE PURCHASERS --------------------- 1. SAJI DANIEL, S/O. M.C. DANIEL, MULAMOOTTIL VEEDU, AYOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. S. JALAJA KUMARY, ANUGRAHA, T.C.13/1574, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. SOMAN. K., PUNNAVILA VEEDU, POOMUKULAM, VELLAYANI P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 4. JAYACHANDRAN K., REEJA BHAVAN, ALUNINNA VILA, POOMULAM, VELLAYANI P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN SRI.D.SAJEEV SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF: ------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED KASSIM. M., PUTHEN BUNGLOW, PULIMOOTTUVILAKAM, KARAMANA, MELARANNUR MURI, CHENGAZHASSERY PAKUTHY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SYAMALA, KAVOOTTUKONAM, THEKKUMKARA, PUTHEN VEEDU, POOMKOLAM, MUTTACAUD, NEMOM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. (PLAINTIFF IN THE TRIAL COURT). BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.S.A. NO.689/2003 ORDER ON I.A. . NO.567/2003 IN R.S.A. NO.689/2003 DISMISSED 27.03.2008 SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== R.S.A. NO. 689 OF 2003 =========================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The assignees of the original plaintiff in O.S.1427/1987 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. Appeal was filed after obtaining permission from the court as appellants got assignment of the rights of second respondent during the pendency of first appeal and were not parties to the suit or first appeal. First respondent is the defendant and second respondent the plaintiff. Plaint schedule property originally belonged to Kesavan Nadar, father of second respondent. He admittedly created Ext.A3 mortgage on 27.3.1951, in favour of Mydeen Kannu. The period of mortgage was six years. Subsequently on 22.9.1951 the mortgagee, assigned his mortgage right in favour of first respondent. Second respondent instituted the suit for redemption of Ext.A3 mortgage contending that as R.S.A.689/2003 2 under Ext.A1 first respondent is an assignee mortgagee she is entitled to redeem the mortgage. First respondent resisted the suit contending that suit is barred by limitation. 2. Learned Munsiff granted a decree rejecting the plea that suit was barred by limitation. First respondent challenged the judgment before Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.104/1992. Learned Sub Judge found that when Ext.A3 mortgage was created on 27.3.1951, the right to redeem the mortgage accrued to the mortgagor on the expiry of period of six years and period of limitation as provided under Article 61(a) of Limitation Act 1963 is 30 years and the date started to run from the date on which the right of redemption accrued to the second respondent and as the suit was instituted only on 17.9.1987 it is barred by time. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. It is challenged in the appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for appellants was heard at the admission stage. 4. The argument of the learned counsel R.S.A.689/2003 3 appearing for appellants is that eventhough Ext.A3 mortgage was created on 27.3.1951, under Ext.A1 assignment deed, the mortgage right was transferred in favour of first respondent on 22.9.1951 and the period of six years of the mortgage is to be computed from 22.9.1951 and the period of limitation as provided under Article 61(a) would start to run only on the expiry of six years from 22.9.1951 and therefore the period of limitation would expire only on 22.9.1987 and as suit was instituted on 17.8.1987, it is within time. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. 6. Ext.A3 mortgage was executed on 27.3.1951. The period of mortgage was six years. Under Article 61(a) the period for redemption or recovery of possession of the mortgaged property is 30 years and the time would start to run when the right to redeem or to recover possession accrues. The right to redeem and recover possession, accrued to the mortgagor on the expiry of six years from R.S.A.689/2003 4 27.3.1951. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for appellants that the period of mortgage is to be computed as six years from 22.9.1951 cannot be accepted. The six years period of the mortgage started to run from 27.3.1951. It cannot be from 22.9.1951 as canvassed by the appellants. If that be so, as rightly found by first appellate court the right to redeem and recover possession of Ext.A3 mortgage accrued and the period started to run, on the expiry of six years from 27.3.1951. The period for instituting a suit for redemption and recovery of possession therefore expired on the expiry of 30 years from 27.3.1957. A suit for redemption, should have been instituted on or before 27.3.1987. As the suit was instituted only on 17.9.1987, it is clearly barred by time. Appeal is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006