A. Hariprasad, J.

1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings in a suit for redemption of mortgage, the defendants have come up in this second appeal. Plaintiffs 3 to 8 are the respondents in this appeal.

2. Heard Smt. Bindu, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. G.S. Reghunath, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant are as follows :

Plaint schedule property belonged to one Appilose Haris. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are siblings. Appilose Haris was plaintiffs' mother's sister's son. Haris was serving the Military and he remained a bachelor throughout his life. After retirement from the service, he resided along with the plaintiffs. While living with the plaintiffs, he executed Ext.A1 mortgage deed in favour of the defendants on 04.03.1963. While so, on one day, he left home and thereafter, his whereabouts were not known to the plaintiffs. Haris had gone missing about 15 years prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, he should be presumed to be dead on the date of suit. According to the plaintiffs' assertion, they are the legal heirs of Haris and therefore, they are entitled to redeem the mortgage from the 1st appellant (1st