M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

1. Plaintiffs 1 and 3 in O.S.119 of 1992 on the file of Munsiff Court, Adoor are the appellants. Legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant are respondents 1 to 3. Second plaintiff is the fourth respondent. On his death, additional respondents 5 to 7 were impleaded as his legal heirs. Learned Munsiff passed a preliminary decree for partition in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties but dismissed the claim for partition of item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties. Appellants challenged the decree before Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta in A.S.19 of 1996. Learned Additional District Judge confirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal confirming the dismissal of the claim for partition of item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties. Appeal is filed challenging the decree. The appeal was admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law.

1) Whether the redemption taken by Sri. Narayana Pillai is for himself or is for and on behalf of the tharawad.

2) Whether the recital in Ext.A1 document regarding the availability of other items for partition refers to this property also”.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents were heard. Learned counsel appearing for appellants argued that item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties admittedly belonged to Neelakanda Pillai and on his death, it devolved on his son Raman Pillai. Appellants, fourth respondent and first respondent are the children of Raman Pillai. It is submitted that admittedly Neelakanda Pillai had created two usufructory mortgage in favour of Ayyan in 1106 ME being the eastern portion of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and in favour of Mathai being the western portion of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in 1112 ME. Later the deceased defendant who was the Karanavan of the family redeemed the mortgage in 1115-ME for and on behalf of the family. Appellants have paid their share of the mortgage money, interest and litigation expenses to the defendant. Therefore item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties, which on the death of Raman Pillai devolved on the appellants, fourth respondent and the defendant. They are in joint possession. Plaintiffs are entitled to their ¼ share each separated.

3. Defendant resisted the suit contending that the mortgages were redeemed by him and he did not receive any contribution from the plaintiffs. As the mortgage was redeemed in 1115 ME, he stepped into the shoes of the mortgagees. The period for institution of suit for redemption by the plaintiffs is barred. Hence defendant is the absolute owner in possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and it is not available for partition.

4. Before the learned Munsiff only the first plaintiff was examined as PW1. Ext.A1, the subsequent partition deed entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant and Ext.B1, sale deed in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property were marked. Defendants did not adduce oral evidence. Learned Munsiff on the evidence found that item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties was outstanding in the possession of the mortgagees under possessory mortgage of 1106 and 1112 ME and Neelakanda Pillai, the mortgagor died on 22nd Meenam 1106 and his son, the father of plaintiffs and defendant died on 22nd Medam 1106 and evidence establish that defendant redeemed the mortgage in 1115 ME. It was found that on redemption of the mortgage, defendant became the absolute owner in possession of his share of the property and stepped into the shoes of the mortgagees in respect of the share of the plaintiffs and as the mortgages were redeemed in 1115 ME, the mortgage became irredeemable and thus plaintiffs lost the right to redeem the mortgage over their proportionate share, as provided under Section 27 of the Limitation Act and therefore held that item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties are not available for partition. Lear