The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.4A(1)(a) of Act 1 of 1964, focusing on the continuous possession of the mortgagee for not less than fifty years as on 1-1-1970 and the applicability of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to agricultural land.

1. The substantial question of law arising for consideration in this second appeal is whether the respondents-defendants are entitled to the benefit of S.4A(1) (a) of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969.

2. In the suit filed in 1964 for redemption of a mortgage, the trial court passed a preliminary decree for redemption rejecting the contentions of the defendants that the plaintiffs have no title. The question of value of improvements was relegated to the final decree. Appeal and Second Appeal were dismissed. While so. Act 1 of 1964 was amended by Act 35 of 1969 incorporating S.4A among other provisions. In the final decree proceedings defendants claimed protection under S.4A(1)(a). That claim was upheld by the trial court and the appellate court. Hence this second appeal.

3. Thevi and her brother Madan mortgaged 23 cents of land with an old shed in Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum for 700 fanams in favour of two persons by name Krishnan and Kunjan under Ext. P1 in 1082. Mortgagees assigned their rights in favour of one Kunchena Krishnan in 1089. After the death of Madan, Kunchi the mortgagor gave Ext. P3 superior mortgage on 25-10-1099 in favour of one Neelakandan Krishnan for 1400 fanams reserving 700 fanams with him for redeeming Ext. P1 mortgage. Instead of redeeming the mortgage the superior mortgagee assigned his right to the assignee-mortgagee Kunchena Krishnan by Ext. P4 in the year 1101. He in turn assigned his rights to defendants 1 to 6 under Ext. P5 on 17-9-1018.

4. In order to claim protection under S.4A (1)(a), the person must be a mortgagee with possession of the land and be must have been holding the land for a continuous period of not less than fifty years as on 1-1-1970, Under Explanation II to S.4A, the period during which the predecessor-in-interest or predecessors¬in-interest was or were in possession shall also be taken into account in computing the continuous period of fifty years. In this case, the qualifying period of fifty years as on 1-1-1970 will be satisfied only if continuous possession is calculated from 29-7-1082 on which date the original mortgage Ext. PI was executed. If calculated from the period of Ext. P3 superior mortgage in 1099 the condition will not be satisfied. Therefore the question for consideration is the date from which possession as mortgagee has to be calculated for considering the claim under S.4A(1) (a). The intention of the Legislature seems to be to protect the mortgagees with long periods of possession as such as on 1-1-1970 from being evicted. The contention of the appellants is that as soon as the assignee-mortgagee Kunchena Krishnan took assignment of Ext. P3 superior mortgage on 25-7-1101 under Ext. P4 his mortgage right got extinguished or merged with the superior mortgage right and thereafter there is no question of the original mortgage being alive or in existence. According to them, for the purpose of claiming protection under S.4A(1) (a) Kunchena Krishnan and thereafter defendants 1 to 6 are entitled to claim possession only from 25-7-1101.

5. What is relevant is continuous possession of the mortgagee. In computing such continuous possession as on 1-1-1970 as mortgagee the only period of absence of direct possession that could be included is the period during which the predecessor-in-interest or predecessors-in-interest was or were holding the property. Predecessor-in-interest more or less indicates a person who has preceded another in a given state, position, right etc. Identity of interest seems to be involved in it. A person having a bigger interest may not be able to claim the possession of a person having only lesser interest as the possession of his predecessor. A superior mortgagee who redeems a prior mortgage as directed and with the funds reserved by the mortgagor may not be able to say that the prior mortgagee whose interest he redeemed is his predecessor-in-interest. In terms of the provisions of S.92 of the Transfer of Property Act, it cannot be co