1.Second Appeal by 1st defendant.

2. The appellant, in conjunction with his wife, had mortgaged the suit property with possession to the respondent on April 29, 1952. While in possession of the property the respondent was prosecuted by a stranger for wrongful entry into the property and convicted on March 12,1958. Averring that he had lost possession of the property, the respondent instituted this suit on August 7, 1958, for the mortgage money. The appellant contended that the respondent had not lost possession of the property and therefore a cause of action for money had not arisen and alternatively that the suit was barred by limitation. The courts below concurred to find the respondent to have lost possession of the propertsy and to decree the suit. Hence this second appeal.

3. It is contended here that there is no covenant to repay in the mortgage deed and that even if one is deemed to be implied that can be enforced only on a reconveyance of the property and also that the suit is barred by limitation.

4. The suit mortgage (Ext. P-1) is styled an Otti. Otti, in Travancore, is an anomalous mortgage in which a personal covenant to repay is implied. The respondent says he