The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer under Ext. III did not amount to a denial or negation of the plaintiff's rights, and therefore, the suit for redemption was not barred by limitation under Art.122 of the Travancore Limitation Act.

C.A. Vaidialingam, J.

1. This is an appeal by the 3rd defendant against an order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge of Quilon.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for redemption and recovery of his half share in the suit properties after partition by metes and bounds. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff has no subsisting title in the suit properties and that, in any event, the suit is barred under Art.122 of the Travancore Limitation Act. There were also other contentions on merits. The Trial Court took up issue No. 4 regarding the plea of limitation as a preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that the suit was barred under Art.122 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the suit without going into the other issues. It is regrettable that in deciding this issue, the Trial Court has disposed off the matter rather summarily.

3. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge, Quilon differed from the Trial Court on the question of limitation. According to the learned Judge, the suit is not barred by limitation. In this view, he set aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the suit for disposal on other issues.

4. Against the order of remand, the 3rd defendant has filed the appeal.

5. So far as the actual facts are concerned, there is not much dispute. One Chackuvan Thomman executed an Otti on 6-7-1084 under Ext. I for Rs. 400/- in favour of his sons, Idichandi and Kochu Thoman. The plaintiff is the son of Idichandi and the 1st defendant is Kochu Thoman. On 29-5-1085, the father, Chakuvan Thomman executed a will bequeathing his properties to his different children. It is unnecessary to go into the details of that will expecting to state that the father gave the properties covered by Ext. I to the plaintiffs father and the 1st defendant together with the Otti debts. There is significant recital in the said will as follows:

"xxx"

This recital clearly shows that though the properties were given to the two sons, the sons had to discharge the encumbrance if the father did not discharge hem during his lifetime.

6. The father appears to have died in or about 1087 and the equity of redemption in the suit properties should have vested in the plaintiffs father and the 1st defendant by virtue of the will, Ext. A.

7. On 18-6-1085, the plaintiff executed a for 1400 Fanmas in favour of the 1st defendant. On 23-8-1112, the 1st defendant executed a Ext. III for Rs. 400/- in favour of the father of defendants 2 and 3. Ultimately, there is no dispute that the 3rd defendant has acquired the entire rights obtained by his father under Ext. III. The effect and scope of the two documents Exts. II and III will be dealt with later in the judgment, as the main decision in the case depends upon what was conveyed under Ext. II to the 1st defendants and what in turn, was conveyed by the first defendant under Ext. III.

8. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 21-5-1952 for redemption of the mortgage right and for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties. The defence is that the plaintiff has conveyed his entire rights under Ext. II and that he has no subsisting title. Alternatively, it is also pleaded that, in any event, the 1st defendant has executed Ext. III as full owner and conveyed the entire rights in the property to the father of defendants 2 and 3 as such, the suit is barred by limitation under Art.122 of the Travancore Limitation Act.

9. Before going into the contentions of the learned counsel on both sides, it may be stated that Art.122 of the Travancore Limitation Act corresponds to Art.134 of the Central Act IX of 1908 as it stood prior to its amendment in 1929. The first column of the article provides for recovery of possession of immovable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the trustee or mortgagee for a valuable consideration. The second column provides a period of 12 year