1. Plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title is the appellant in the second appeal. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are the following:-The plaintiff purchased under Ext. Al dated 8-8-1934 kanam-kuzhikanam rights over a property which measured forty 6' 'koles east-west and 31 north-south. The vendors were defendants Nos.1 to 3 and Kunhunni Musaliar, father of defendants Nos. 4 to 6. At the time of the institution of the suit Kunhunni Musaliar was no more. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 1,500/. A sum of Rs. 1.094 out of the said consideration was reserved with the plaintiff for discharging the liability under a hypothecation bond No 453 of 1922 in favour of Raman Somayajippad. The liability was not discharged as undertaken. It necessitated the execution of a fresh mortgage deed Ext. BI dated 25-3-1935, in which the plaintiff herein and the vendors of Ext. Al joined as mortgagors. That document took in the property conveyed under Ext. A1 as also other items. The liability under Ext. B1 also was not discharged. That led to the institution of a suit by the assignee of the mortgage, OS. No. 26 of 1947, of which Ext. A2 dated 8-3-1948