The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.4A of Act 1 of 1964, specifically regarding its applicability to non-agricultural land and the requirement of continuous possession for 50 years by the mortgagee or predecessor-in-interest.

1. This second appeal is by the 1st defendant in a suit for partition and redemption. The property belonged to one Ananthakrishna Iyer. The property is 9 cents of land with a residential building, a shop building and a well and is situated in a street called 'Brahmin Street', Attingal. Ananthakrishna Iyer mortgaged the property under Ext. P1 dated 8121092 to one Pichu Iyer. Subsequently the rights of Pichu Iyer were taken assignment of by one Harihara Iyer, son of the mortgagor Ananthakrishna Iyer. Ananthakrishna Iyer executed a purakadom, Ext. P2 dated 2-5-1106 also to this Harihara Iyer. Subsequently Ananthakrishna Iyer died and his rights over the equity of redemption devolved on his lour sons, namely, his mortgagee Harihara Iyer, one Sivaramakrishna Iyer, Padmanabha Iyer and Ananthanarayana Iyer. Harihara Iyer assigned his mortgage rights as well as his share in the equity of redemption to one Parvathy Ammal, wife of the 2nd defendant and mother of 1st defendant. The rights of the three other sons of Ananthakrishna Iyer were sold in court auction and the auction purchaser sold his rights to the plaintiff under Ext. P5 dated 27-3-1967. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff on the basis of this Ext. P5 to partition and recover possession of three-fourth of the property on redemption of Exts. PI and P2 mortgage and purakadom. The defendants, though had initially disputed the title of the plaintiff to redeem, ultimately relied on the provisions of S.4A introduced by Act 35 of 1969 to Act 1 of 1964 to resist the claim for recovery of possession of the property. The trial court found the plaintiff has got title to redeem three-fourth of the property and also found that the defendants, namely defendants 1 and 2, are not entitled to the benefit of S.4A of Act 1 of 1964 for the reason that the property mortgaged is a building with appurtenant land situated in the heart of a street and does not come within the scope of 'agricultural land' to get the benefit of S.4A. In other words, the trial court found that S.4A of the Land Reforms Act can apply only to agricultural lands and since the land in question does not come within that category, the benefit of S.4A is not available to the person in possession. In that view the decree for partition and redemption was granted and the plaintiff was directed to apply for passing a final decree and the contesting defendants were allowed to take out a commission to assess the value of improvements, it any, on the portion of the property sought to be recovered by the plaintiff.

2. Against this decision defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal to Sub Court, Attingal, and pending that appeal the 2nd defendant, 2nd appellant, died and the 1st defendant was recorded as his legal representative. In the lower appellate court two contentions were urged against the decision of the trial court. Firstly, it was contended that the benefit of S.4A is available in respect of any land, whether agricultural or non-agricultural, and secondly the suit for redemption is barred by limitation. Both these contentions were repelled by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court agreed with the trial court in coming to the conclusion that the Act applies only to agricultural lands and since the plaint property does not come within that category S.4A of Act 1 of 1964 will not apply for that land. The plea of limitation for redemption was also found against, rightly so because Ext. P1 mortgage was followed by Ext. P2 purakadom in the year 1106 and the mortgagee acknowledging the mortgage assigned his right only in the year 1119 within the period of limitation to redeem a mortgage. In this view the trial court's decree was confirmed and this second appeal is filed by the 1st defendant challenging the decrees passed by the lower courts.

3. In view of the decision of the Full Bench in 1976 KLT. 341 it is not open to the respondent-plaintiff to contend that S.4A does not apply to the plaint property, a non