1. Considering the importance of the question of law involved, the learned Single Judge, before whom this second appeal came up for hearing, adjourned it to be heard by a Division Bench, which, in its turn, has referred it to Full Bench for an authoritative decision on the question as to whether, in the case of mortgage arising out of Travancore area before the Transfer of Property Act (Act 4 of 1882) was extended to that area, a superior mortgagee (melottidar) who redeemed the prior mortgage with the amount reserved with him for that specific purpose and in terms of the covenants in the mortgage deed in his favour, is entitled to get himself subrogated to the position of the prior mortgagee for the purpose of S.4A(1)(a), read with Explanation II to that sub-section, of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, hereinafter called the Act; and that is how the matter is now before us.

2. Facts are not in dispute, and are not required to be stated in detail for a decision of the question of law referred to us which virtually will dispose of the second appeal itself. The suit is one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties, redeeming Ext. P-2 mortgage (melotti) dated 5th Kumbham 1119 created in favour of the appellant herein (the first defendant in the suit) by one Krishna Pillai Sankara Pillai to whom the properties originally belonged. Prior to Ext. P-2 mortgage (melotti) the said Krishna Pillai Sankara Pillai had executed Ext. P-1 settlement deed (Dhananischayam udampadi) dated, 14th Edavam 1104, settling his properties on his mother and his children. Pursuant to Ext. P-2 melotti, Ext. D-2 prior mortgage dated 5th Kumbham 1083 was redeemed and the plaint schedule properties were reduced to his possession by the appellant as per Ext. P-3 release deed dated 16th Kumbham 1119.

3. In the year 1967, after the said Krishna Pillai Sankara Pillai died on 25th August 1964, plaintiffs 1 and 2 (original defendants 4 and 5 were subsequently transposed as plaintiffs 4 and 3 respectively) instituted the suit claiming title to the properties as his legal heirs and also on the strength of Ext. P-1 Dhananischayam udampadi. The defence of the appellant as the first defendant in the suit, inter alia, was that he was not liable to be evicted from the plaint schedule properties, he being a cultivating tenant entitled to fixty of tenure under S.13 of the Act, inasmuch as Ext. P-2, though styled as a melotti, in effect and substance evidenced a lease, and, alternatively, that, as a mortgagee he is entitled to the benefits of S.4A (1) (a) of the Act, tracing his rights on continuous possession from the date of Ext. D-2 which was redeemed by Ext. P-3 release deed, on the principle of subrogation. This second appeal by the first defendant is directed against the concurrent decision of the courts below in favour of the plaintiffs allowing redemption of Ext. P-2 mortgage and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties, repelling the contentions of the appellant.

4. No doubt, various grounds are seen to have been raised in the memorandum of second appeal, however, all that is highlighted during the course of the arguments centres round the point whether the appellant, in law aril on the facts of the case, is entitled to invoke S.4A (1) (a) of the Act as a shield against redemption and eviction. It is the contention of the appellant that he, as a subsequent mortgagee under Ext. P-2, is entitled to use Ext. D-2 prior mortgage which was released in his favour as per Ext. P-3 release deed, as a shield against redemption and eviction invoking S.4A(1) (a) of the Act.

5. It is not disputed before us that the appellant redeemed Ext. D-2 mortgage as per Ext. P-3 release deed utilising the amounts specifically earmarked for that purpose and reserved with him out of the amount secured by Ext. P-2 melotti and in accordance with the covenants contained therein. On a reading of the relevant portions