( 1 ) WILL it nut be unreasonable, if not absurd, to grant relief against the clog on equity of redemption in one breath and to deny the relief of redemption in the other breath by treating the suit as tirnebarred ? This is the question arising for the consideration of this Court in this Second Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff before the trial Court under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code for brief) questioning the correctness of the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge of Kutch at Bhuj on 30/01/1979 in Regular civil Appeal No. 45 of 1977. Thereby the learned lower appellate Judge has upset the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) at Mandvi on 24/01/1977 in Civil Suit No. 117 of 1974. Thereby the learned trial Judge accepted the present appellants suit for redemption of the mortgage and passed a preliminary decree in his favour.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this Second Appeal are not many and not much in dispute. The appellant claims to be the owner of one wada situated towards the Western side of Viiiage Bambhabai, Taluka Mandvi, district Kutch (the Suit Property for convenience ). He is stated to have mortgaged it with the deeeased husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein for 725 Kories (a currency in circulation in those days) on Posh Vad 14 of S. Y. 2000 equivalent to 24/01/1944. The mortgage was subjected to certain terms and conditions and one such term made the mortgage irredeemable for a period of 50 years from the date of the transaction. Under the mortgage date. the mortgagee was invested with several rights including the right to spend any amount on the property and to seek reimbursement thereof from the mortgagor at the time of its redemption. It appears that the mortgagor left for his heavenly abode leaving behind him respondent No. 1 herein as his widow and respondents nos. 2 and 3 herein as his son and daughter. It appears that respondent no. 4 herein was inducted as a tenant in the mortgaged property by the mortgagor. The present appellant tried to pay back to the heirs of the deceased mortgagor the mortgage amount with interest due thereon for the purpose of seeking redemption of the mortgaged property before expiry of 50 years. It appears that his request was not acceded to by and on behalf of the heirs of the deceased mortgagor. The appellant herein thereupon served one notice in that regard through his Advocate on 4/04/1974 claiming redemption of the suit property. That notice was not complied with. He thereof filed one suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) at Mandvi against the respondents herein for redemption of the suit property and for its possession and for other incidental reliefs. It came to be registered as Civil Suit No. 117 of 1974. Respondent No. 1 herein only resisted the suit by filing her written statement at Exh. 22 on the record of the trial Court. She inter alia contended that the present appellant was not entitled to seek redemption of the suit property and in the alternative the suit was barred by the Law of Limitation. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned trial judge framed the necessary issues at Exh. 25 on the record of the case. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his judgment and preliminary decree passed on 24/01/1977, the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) at Mandvi accepted the plaintiffs suit and passed the preliminary decree for accounts with respect to. the expenses made by the mortgagor or his successors-in-interest with respect to the suit property. The judgment and the preliminary decree aggrievad respondent No. 1 herein. She carried the matter in appeal before the District Court of Kutch at Bhuj by means of her appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code. It came to be registered as Regular civil Appeal No. 45 of 1977. It appears to have been assigned to the learned assistant Judge of Kutch at Bhuj for trial and disposa