1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.137/91 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Paravoor, are the appellants. Suit was one for directing the defendant to execute a release deed after receiving contribution towards redemption price from the plaintiffs. The defendant for and behalf of the Thavazhi of the plaintiffs and defendant had redeemed the suit property, which was outstanding on mortgage, pursuant to the execution of a partition deed and the directions contained thereunder, which was entered into by the parties after a final decree had been passed in a suit for partition over the properties belonging to their family viz., Manikazhakam family. The defendant redeemed the property paying the mortgage price of Rs.500/-, and, later, she had executed a release deed over 4 cents of property in favour of the 8th plaintiff, receiving a sum of Rs.200/- as the contribution due from that plaintiff. The balance amount due to the defendant towards the sum paid by her to redeem the property is only Rs.300/-, and receiving such sum, she is bound to execute a release deed over the suit property, was the case of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also alleged that since they are in possession, the relief of recovery of possession is not sought for in the suit.

2. The defendant resisting the suit challenged the reliefs canvassed thereunder on various grounds including the maintainability of the suit as barred by limitation. The case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property was also disputed by the defendant contending that after redemption she continued in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property, and later she had executed a sale deed over the property in favour of her husband. Both the courts below, after evaluating the claim of the plaintiffs to get a release deed executed over the property by the defendant by accepting the contribution due towards the redemption price paid by her, concurrently held that such claim was barred by limitation upholding the contention so raised by the defendant.

3. Substantial questions of law formulated on which notice was ordered for hearing are thus:

(i) Whether the co-owner paying the mortgage amount and is entitled to receive contributions from the other co-owners could resist a suit for executing a release deed to the other co-owners on payment of their contributions by contending that the suit is barred by limitation?

(ii) Whether conclusion of the lower courts that the defendant co-owner have paid the mortgage amount has got possession of the property could be legally justified and the decisions of the lower courts on the basis that the suit should have been for possession are legally sustainable?

(iii) Would not the suit for getting a release deed executed on the basis that the possession is with the plaintiffs be maintainable and should not a decree have been passed as prayed for?

4. The trail court had considered all issues cast on the pleadings of the parties in the suit, but, the lower appellate court after raising all pertinent points germane for determination on the disputed questions involved in the first appeal, as seen from its judgment, proceeded to consider the question of limitation and the answer thereto being found agreeing with that of the trail court, negatived the challenge against the decree of dismissal rendered in the suit. So much so, the substantial questions of law formulated as Nos. 2 and 3 in the appeal over and above, as to whether the suit should have been one for possession and also the entitlement of the plaintiffs to get a release deed executed by the defendant on the case advanced that they are in possession of the suit property, would arise for consideration only if the concurrent finding entered over the bar of limitation to the suit by the two courts below is found to be not correct and liable to be interfered with.

5. Facts covered by the lis which are germane for determining the question of limitation are not at all in dis