The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mortgagees, by wilfully defaulting in payment of revenue and purchasing the properties in a revenue sale, were bound to hold the properties with all their liabilities in relation to the mortgagors.

1. The plaintiffs, whose suit O. S.212/1951 for redemption of the mortgage after taking an account has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, are the appellants before us.

2. The plaintiffs' case was that the properties mentioned in the schedules A to C of the plaint originally belonged to a tarwad known as the Kuikolari tarwad. The second plaintiff is the present Karnavan of the said tarwad. The properties were usufructuarily mortgaged on 4-9-1888 by the tarwad for Rs. 2000/- to one Meloth Rama of the tarwad of defendants 1 and 2, for a period of 30 years as evidenced by Ext. Bl. Subsequently, for the aggregate amounts then due, the mortgagors executed, on 26-9-1909, a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 5,981- vide Ext. Al. The mortgage under Ext. Al was fora period of 40 years from the date of the expiry of the 30 years mentioned in Ext. Bl. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint A and C schedule properties were in the possession of the mortgagors themselves as lessees and the B schedule items alone were in the possession of the mortgagees. On 25-5-1950, the properties comprised in A and B schedules were sold to the first plaintiff under Ex-A2 with a direction to redeem the mortgage under Ext. Al. The C schedule properties were retained by the tarwad of the mortgagors. Therefore, the suit was filed for redemption, after making the necessary adjustments under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, the first plaintiff claiming redemption of the A and B schedule properties and the second plaintiff of C schedule items.

3. The plaintiffs also contended that the sale of the B schedule properties under the Revenue Recovery Act due to the default of the mortgagees is not binding on the plaintiffs and in any event, they claim compensation for loss of the property.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiffs have lost their right to redeem the A and C schedule properties, in view of the decision of the District Munsiff's Court, Kasaragode in O.S. 243/1922. That was a suit by the Karanavan of the mortgagee tarwad praying for a decree directing the defendant therein the Karnavan of the mortgagor tarwad to surrender possession of the properties with mense profits. In spite of contest, the suit was decreed and the decree has been executed and the properties had been sold and the sale has been confirmed on 3-3-1936, the decreeholder-mortgagee being the purchaser. Therefore, the plaintiffs have lost all rights in respect of A and C schedule properties.

5. So far as the B schedule properties are concerned, defendants 3 and 4 contested the plaintiffs' right to redeem those items. Their contention in brief was that the properties had been sold for default of payment of revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act and the plaintiff is barred from challenging it under S.59 of the said Act and the sale having become absolute, the plaintiffs' tarwad have lost the equity of redemption in the B schedule property as well.

6. Regarding A and C schedule properties, the learned Subordinate Judge held that they were the subject matter of O. S.243/1922. He held that it was the second plaintiff who represented the mortgagor tarwad in execution proceedings in the said suit which ultimately resulted in the sale of the properties in favour of the mortgagees-decreeholders. No doubt, the learned judge held that the application for execution under which the properties were sold was barred by limitation. But he held that it was not open to the plaintiffs to challenge the validity of the sale, in separate proceedings like the present suit and that they should have challenged the sale in the execution proceedings in O. S.243/1922 itself. Therefore, he held that the plaintiffs have no right to redeem the items comprised in plaint-schedules A and C.

7. So far as the B schedule items are concerned, the learned judge held that the fraud and collusion set up by the plaintiffs regarding the Revenue sale have not been substan