JUDGMENT.-The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage.

2. The admitted case of the parties was: The suit property belonged to Puthu-veedu tarwad. Purthuveedu tarwad had three sakas, viz., Chenkattu saka represented by Padmanabhan Peruman, Eswaran Eswaran and Raman Raman, Elumbarathu saka, represented by Padmanabhan Kali, Neelakantan Raman and Neelakantan Nagan, and Udantha-vilagathu saka represented by Kali Kumaran, Ayyappan Kumaran and Velayudhan Ayyappan. As far as Chenkattu saka was concerned, the same had become extinct on the death of Raman Raman in 1095 (M.E.) b. The plaintiffs belong to Udanthavilagathu saka. Their karnavan, Raman Eswaran, executed an othi and kuzhikanam for 7,000 fanams to one Manthiramoorthy and three others in respect of the suit property under Exhibit A-1 on 30th November 1084 (M.E.). Subsequent to, Exhibit A-1, in the family partition, Bhagavathi Pillai and her daughter Bharathi pilla were allotted half of the suit property along with other properties, and Bhagavathi Pillai’s another daugher viz., the first plaintiff and her daugher the second plaintiff, were allotted the remaining half share in the suit property and other properties. Under Exhibit A-2, partition deed. Bhagavathi Pillai bequeathed her one-fourth share in the suit property obtained under Exhibit A-2 to her grand-daughter, the second plaintiff, under Exhibit A-3, Bharathi Pilla’s one fourth share obtained under Exhibit A-2 devolved on her daughter, the third plaintiff. Thereby the plaintiffs became entitled to the equity of redemption of the suit property. The plaintiffs and Bhaga-vathi Pillai got release of a one-sixth of Exhibit A-1 othi right from one Esakki Madan Arumugham under Exhibit A-5. They have filed the suit for redemption of the remaining five-sixths share in the suit property.

3. The only contesting defendant, viz., the thirteenth defendant, contended that the plaintiffs’ karnavan Raman Eswaran had no right to execute Exhibit A-1 othi and kuzhikanam over the entire suit property and that the suit property “belonged to the common kar-nevan Velayudhan Ayyappan and Kandan Thanuvan. Kandan Thanuvan was the common karnavan of the plaintiffs’ karnavan Raman Eswaran and the defendant’s karnavan Neelakantan Thanuvan. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to redemption of half of the suit property less the one-sixth obtained release of under Exhibit A-5, and the defendants and the members of their” branch are entitled to the other half of the suit property. On behalf of his tarwad, the thirteenth defendant got release of his tarwad’s half share under Exhibit B-14.

4. The plaintiffs denied that Kandan Thanuvan was the common karnavan of their branch and stated that he belonged to a different branch.

5. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree for redemption of the suit property on the finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to the entire suit property and the defendants have no right thereto. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the thirteenth defendant preferred an appeal to the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram. The lower appellate Court, after elaborately discussing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Kandan Thanuvan and others were members of the C branch, that the third branch subsequently became divided into two branches, viz., C1 and C2, one represented by Raman Eswaran and the other by Neelakantan Thanuvan, and that Kandan Thanuvan was their common karnavan. This finding was arrived at by the lower appellate Court, after proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, particularly Exhibits B-8, B-10, B-12 and B-13, and as such it being a finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered with at the second appellate stage.

6. Thiru Padmanabhan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that even though the finding that Kandan Thanuvan was the common karnavan of the C-1, and C-2 branches cannot be successfully canvassed, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document