The burden of proof in challenging a registered instrument and the principle 'Once a mortgagee ever a mortgagee' were central legal points established in the judgment.

1. Plaintiffs in a suit for redemption, O.S.No.122/84 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad are the appellants. Both the courts below have negatived their claim for redemption of the suit property, finding merit in the contentions taken by the respondent/defendant denying the mortgage, and of claiming anterior possessory right over the suit property, more than a decade before the alleged mortgage, by way of trespass, with a further plea of prescribing title over the same by adverse possession. Before the lower appellate court, the plaintiff had moved an application for amending the plaint to seek an alternative relief for recovery of possession on the strength of their title, but that was also turned down as belated while dismissing their appeal, and confirming the dismissal of the suit by the trial court.

2. Short facts necessary for consideration of the substantial questions of law raised for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus:

Suit property having an extent of 8 cents was obtained by the 1st plaintiff under Ext.A6 partition deed. Second plaintiff is her daughter and 3rd plaintiff, her son in law. Pursuant to Ext.A6 partition deed, the 1st plaintiff executed Ext.A3 mortgage deed over the suit property, for a sum of ` 5,000/-, in favour of the defendant and put him in possession of the property. A term of 6 years was fixed under the deed after which right to redeem was to commence. Subsequently, she executed A2 settlement deed in favour of her daughter, 2nd plaintiff, authorizing her to redeem the property, and the 2nd plaintiff in turn executed Ext.A3 sale deed authorising her husband 3rd plaintiff, to redeem the property. When the period fixed was over, alleging that the defendant has committed damage to the tune of ` 2,000/- and the improvements effected by him for digging a well, that alone, was ` 100/-, the plaintiffs, all of them together, laid the suit for redemption, seeking adjustment of the sum due as damages in the mortgage price payable to the defendant.

3. The defendant resisted the suit claim disputing the mortgage (Ext.A1) and contended that the property belongs to him. He claimed of obtaining possession over the property by trespass in 1965, and of conducting a tea shop in the building put up by him. Ext.A3 mortgage is a fraudulent document created by the plaintiffs to claim right over the property, was his further case. He also contended that the 1st plaintiff has not obtained right over the property under Ext.A6 partition deed. Impeaching Ext.A3 mortgage deed as not binding on him and disowning his liability to surrender the property as a mortgagee, he further contended that Ext.A1 is the product of fraud and impersonation. In the alternative, it was contended that if at all the plaintiffs have any right over the suit property, their rights have been lost by adverse possession and limitation by his continuous hostile possession over the property from 1965 onwards. Claim for a sum of ` 20,000/- towards value of improvements was also canvassed, if for any reason, the property is found to be redeemable.

4. The trial court, on the pleadings of the parties, raised the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the mortgage, and if so, the claim of damages raised, or any part thereof, is sustainable?

(ii) Whether Ext.A3 mortgage deed is binding on the defendant?

(iii) Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession?

(iv) Has the defendant any special right over the property and

(v) What, if any, is the value of improvements?

5. On the materials tendered by both sides, which consisted of Pws.1 to 5, Exts.A1 to A11 for the plaintiffs, DWS.1 and Exts.B1 to B15 for the defendant and Ext.C1 report prepared by the advocate commissioner, after conducting local inspection over the suit property, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant had come into possession long before Ext.A3 mortgage and that there was no clinching evid