IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 SA.No. 979 of 2001(G) --------------------- AS.63/1996 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA OS.922/1989 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHEMBUNADATHY BHARGAVY, KODANNOOR VALIYAVILAKATHU KIZHAKKE VEEDU, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR PAKUTHY. (DIED) 2. LAKSHMIKUTTY SUKUMARI, KODANNOOR VALIYAVILAKATHU KIZHAKKE VEEDU, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR PAKUTHY. THE NAME OF THE 1ST APPELLANT IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.12.02 IN MEMO OF 6019/02 DATED 27.9.02. BY ADVS. SRI.L.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LAKSHMI SUNDARIT, ARAPPURA VEEDU, VALIYA VEETTUVILAKOM, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR PAKUTHY. 2. PONNUNADAR PRABHAKARAN, ARAPPURA VEEDU, VALIYA VEETTUVILAKOM, MARANALLOR DESOM, MARANALLOORPAKUTY. 3. SUNDARI MADHAVI, ARAPPURA VEEDU, VALIYA VEETTUVILAKOM, MARANALLOR DESOM, MARANALLOORPAKUTY. 4. SUNDARI SAVITRI, ARAPPURA VEEDU, VALIYA VEETTUVILAKOM, MARANALLOR DESOM , MARANALLOOR PAKUTY. 5. SUNDARI PADMINI, ARAPPURA VEEDU, VALIYA VEETTUVILAKOM, MARANALLOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR PAKUTY. 6. PONNU NADAR MANIKUTTAN, ARAPPURA VEEDU, VALIYA VEETTUVILAKOM, MARANALLOR DESOM , MARANALLOOR PAKUTY. R1 TO 6 BY ADV. SRI.JAYASANKAR THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SA.No. 979 of 2001(G) ------------------------------ ORDER ON CMP.1225/2002 IN SA 979/2001 DISMISSED 20.12.2010 Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. -------------------------- S.A.No.979 OF 2001 --------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The defendants, in O.S.No.922/1989 on the file of the Munsiff court, Neyyattinkara are the appellants. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted the above suit seeking a decree for redemption of Ext.A1 mortgage deed dated 4.10.1958. Inter alia, the appellants contended that they are entitled to tenancy right under Kerala Land Reforms Act. Hence, the matter was referred to the Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal by order dated 7.3.1994 turned down the tenancy right claimed under the Land Reforms Act on arriving at a specific finding that the appellants got possession of the property by virtue of Ext.A1. The trial court accepted the finding of the Land Tribunal and granted a preliminary decree for redemption. The appellate court by judgment dated 24.3.2001 concurred with the trial court. Assailing the above judgment and decree, the Second Appeal was preferred. Following are the questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum. S.A.No.979/2001 2 i) It is not the deposit of the amount due under the preliminary decree after the expiry of thirty years from the date of the mortgage or any extended period barred and is not the right of redemption extinguished? ii) Were not the courts below wrong in condoning the delay in remitting the mortgage money within the period of limitation and before the extinguishment of the mortgage right? iii) Are not the courts below wrong in finding the condonation of delay in respect of the period fixed by the State. iv) Is not the right of redemption of the plaintiffs extinguished by limitation? 2. The questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum is answered against the appellants in Govindan Nair v. Abraham [2002(3) KLT 630]. The fact that the suit was instituted within the period of limitation is not disputed. The plea of limitation was advanced only for the reason that the mortgage amount was deposited after the period of limitation. In the light of the decision in Govindan Nair's case (supra), I find no further question of law to be answered in this Second Appeal. S.A.No.979/2001 3 Second Appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps