( 1 ) SETTLEMENT not reported. Hence, the Court proceeds to deliver the judgment.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed against the common judgment and decree dt. 7-6-2001 passed by the first Appellate Court in R. A. Nos. 104 to 106/95. The appeal is restricted only to R. A. No. 104/95.

( 3 ) THE appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were the defendants in the suit before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.

( 4 ) THE Plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 205/93 for redemption of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff borrowed a sum of rs. 700/- from the first defendant/respondent by executing a conditional sale deed dated 11-4-1972 with the condition to redeem the properties after 5 years and before 10 years. Eventhough the plaintiff repeatedly asked the first defendant to receive the amount and execute the discharge deed, the first defendant delayed the matter on one or the other pretext and finally asked the plaintiff to come to the Sub-Registrar's office. According to the plaintiff, at the Sub-Registrar's office the first defendant obtained the LTM of the plaintiff on two stamp papers and assured that the discharge deed will be given later. Plaintiff alleges that she came to know about the fraud when she received summons from the Civil Court, that her LTMs had been been obtained on the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants/respondents 2 and 3 selling the suit schedule properties. In those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the suit schedule properties.

( 5 ) IN the written statement filed, the defendants denied the plaint averments. It is stated that the transaction was not a mortgage but it was a conditional sale. It is further stated that the suit schedule properties had been sold in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and the plaintiff attested the sale deeds as a consenting party. A specific stand is taken that the suit is barred by limitation and consequently the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed issues and went for trial. Parties adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their respective case. Upon consideration of the material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court by its judgment and decree under appeal. Being aggrieved by the same the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

( 7 ) MR. M. R. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the trial Court committed an error by not taking into consideration the intention of the parties. He reiterated that the transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant was a mortgage and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to redemption of the suit schedule properties.

( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, prima facie I am convinced that the decisions of the courts below are correct. Admittedly, Ex. P-2, is the deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant on 11-4-1972. Plaintiff should have got back the properties after 5 years and before 10 years. The 10 years period ended on 10-4-1982. Plaintiff has not exercised her right to get back the properties before the expiry of 10 years. She filed the suit only in the year 1993. Therefore, rightly the trial Court answered issue No. 4 pertaining to limitation in the affirmative holding that the suit was time barred.

( 9 ) EVEN assuming that the suit schedule properties were mortgaged, plaintiff should have redeemed the mortgage within the period provided in law. She has not chosen to do so. Therefore, plaintiff lost her right to get back the properties. When she has no right over the suit schedule properties she is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the trial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document