IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to a suit relate back to the original filing date, but claims must still comply with limitation periods; a mortgage's nature determines the relationship of parties as debtor and creditor.

JUDGMENT :

(M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.)

1. The appellants are legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant in the suit. The suit - O.S No.383/1980 was filed before the Munsiff’s Court Neyyattinkara for declaration of title and possession, for redemption of mortgage, recovery of possession, consequential injunction and for fixation of boundary. The relief of fixation of boundary was sought with respect to Plaint A schedule property having an extent of 76 cents as against the 2nd defendant. The relief of redemption of mortgage was initially sought with respect to Plaint B schedule property having an extent of 32 cents and Plaint C schedule property having an extent of 25 cents from the 1st defendant. Later, the relief of redemption of mortgage of E schedule property having an extent of 14 cents from the 1st defendant was also included by way of amendment as per Order dated 06.11.1986 in I.A No.4254/1986. In the said order, in view of the objection raised by the 2nd defendant, the Trial Court observed that the right of the 2nd defendant to contend that the relief of redemption of plaint E schedule is barred by limitation is reserved. Plaint B, C and E properties are parts of the Plaint A schedule property. Plaint D schedule property was only a security property for the mortgage.

2. The plaintiffs are the wife and daughter of Kumara Pillai who created mortgage with respect to Plaint B, C and E schedule properties as per Exts.A2, A3 & B1 respectively which ultimately came in the hands of the 1st defendant as per Exts.A5,A6 & B2.

3. The 1st defendant admitted the execution of mortgage with respect to B, C and E schedule properties and the purchase of mortgage rights by the 1st defendant. He claimed that the value of improvements in A schedule property will come to Rs.10,000/-. He claimed that he has got fixity of tenure over the mortgaged properties under the KLR Act. He claimed that the suit is barred by limitation. Since the 1st defendant raised fixity of tenure under the provisions of KLR Act, the said question was referred to the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram and the Land Tribunal Thiruvananthapuram as per Order dated 18.10.1984 in O.A No.220/1982, found that the 1st defendant is not tenant entitled to fixity on the plaint schedule property.

4. The Trial Court allowed the suit granting Preliminary Decree allowing the plaintiffs to deposit the mortgage price of Rs.900/- ( Rs.300/- + Rs.400/- +Rs.200/- ) in the Court and to redeem Plaint B, C and E schedule properties from the 1st defendant and to recover the said properties from the 1st defendant and to release security over plaint D schedule property; declaring title and possession of the plaintiffs over plaint A schedule property subject to the mortgage liabilities. Consequential injunction and fixation of boundaries etc., were also allowed in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. The 1st defendant filed appeal as A.S.No.27/1999 before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court with respect to redemption of mortgage of Plaint C, D and E schedule properties and claiming value of improvements. The 2nd defendant did not challenge the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and hence the fixation of boundaries granted against the 2nd defendant became final.

6. The First Appellate Court allowed the Appeal in part holding that the 1st defendant is entitled to get Rs.1,125/- towards value of the improvements for Plaint B and C schedule properties and ordering the plaintiffs to deposit Rs.1,125/- along with the mortgage price. The judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was confirmed in all other respects.

7. Since the 1st defendant died during the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court, his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 8.

8. This Second Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the 1st defendant. This Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law as per order dated 31.01.2002:

1. Whether th