JUDGMENT

MISRA, J.:— The present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No.6 of 1966 dated the 18th of February, 1970 decreeing the suit for redemption.

2. The property in dispute, situated in Baroda City, originally belonged to Motibhai Bapubhai Shibandi Baxi (for short Motibhai). He created a mortgage with possession of the disputed property in favour of one Nanaji Balwant Pilkhanewala. (for short Nanaji) in 1871 for a sum of Rs. 800. In 1890 a second mortgage was created in favour of the same mortgagee and the amount secured by this second mortgage was Rs. 375. Somewhere between 1890 and 1912 the original mortgagee Nanaji died leaving behind his two sons Hari and Purshottam as his heirs and legal representatives. The two sons of Nanaji sold the entire mortgage rights and interest to one Ganpatram Mugutram Vyas (for short Ganpatram) on 4th of July, 1912. Ganpatram in his turn sold the mortgagee rights in a part of the mortgaged property, viz., common latrine, to one Vamanrao Laxmanrao Nirkhe (for short Vamanrao).

3. Ganpatram died and his son Chhotalal Ganpatram (for short Chhotalal) sold away his rights as a mortgagee in possession in respect of the rest of the properties which still remained with him, to Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta (for short Chhaganlal Mehta).

4. Mortgagor Motibhai also died leaving behind his son Chimanrai Motibhai Baxi (for short Chimanrai). Chimanrai died leaving behind his widow Chhotiba and a daughter Taralaxmibai. On September 12, 1950 Taralaxmibai sold her right, title and interest in the suit property to one, Shantilal Purshottamdas Dalia (for short Shantilal). Later on Shantilal conveyed his right, title and interest in the property to the plaintiff, Narandas Haribhai Patel (for short Narandas).

5. It appears that during the lifetime of Chimanrai Ganpatram, the mortgagee had sent a notice, Ext. 77, dated 15th of April, 1913 to Chimanrai informing him that the mortgaged property was in a dilapidated condition and required repairs. He had already spent some amount towards repairs but still substantial repairs were needed and the same should be got done by him or he should pay the mortgage amount and redeem the property on receipt of this letter Chimanrai made the following endorsement :

During the lifetime of my father, I had become separated from him without taking any kind of the moveable or immoveable property belonging to him and even after his death, I have not taken any kind of his properties nor have I kept my right over the said properties and so I am not in any way responsible for your any transaction whatsoever in connection with his properties. Be it known to you. And while giving you a definite assurance to that effect I have made attestation on the aforesaid document in respect of purchase of the mortgagees rights, which may also be known to you."

6. Long after the death of Chimanrai, Chhotalal, son of Ganpatram, gave a similar notice, Ext. 68, dated 6th of October, 1933 to Chhotiba, the widow of Chimanrai calling upon her to redeem the mortgage in question. On this notice similar endorsement on behalf of Chhotiba was made on 10th of October, 1933 by Lomeshprasad Hariprasad Desai (for short Lomeshprasad), her daughters son, as had been made by Chimanrai earlier on the notice given by Ganpatram. Yet another notice, Ext. 78 dated 21st of September 1933 was sent by Chhotalal to Taralaxmibai, daughter of Chimanrai to the same effect. In her reply, Ext. 73, dated 3rd of October, 1933 to the notice, Taralaxmibai stated inter alia that her father Chimanrai had forgone all rights whatsoever in the property of his father, Motibhai, during his lifetime and hence she had no concern with the property of Motibhai. It was further stated that her own mother Chhotiba was alive (in October, 1933) and, therefore, she had no concern whatsoever with the property of Motibhai or the liabilities arising out of the dealings of Motibha