1. This is a defendants' appeal from the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirur, affirming the decree of the trial court in O. S. No. 353 of 1966.

2. The suit was for redemption of what according to the plaintiff was a mortgage by conditional sale. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the transaction in question was not a mortgage, but an out and out sale with a right of repurchase in the vendor. It was contended that the suit for redemption was not maintainable in respect of the suit property.

3. The property in question is about 98-2/3 cents in Valavannur amsom in Ponnani Taluk. Ext. Al dated 10-9-1955 is the document whereby the defendants have come into possession of the suit property.

4. The plaintiff is the widow of Seythali who executed Ext. Al in favour of the defendants. Seythali transferred his remaining rights under Ext. Al in favour of his wife by Ext. A2 dated 13-11-1962. The fundamental question for consideration is whether the transaction evidenced by Ext. Al is a mortgage by conditional sale or whether it is an outright sale with a right of repurchase in the vendor. If it is the former, Ext. Al falls within the ambit of S.58(c) of th