Period of sixty years from the date of original mortgage available u/A 148.

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—

The question involved in this Reference which has been made by Kailasam, J., relates to the period of limitation applicable to a suit for redemption instituted by one co-mortgagor against another who had earlier redeemed the mortgage and obtained possession of the mortgage property. Recently this Court had occasion to consider this very question in L.P.A. No. 18 of 19611 where a Full Bench, by a majority held that in regard to mortgages created prior to the Transfer of Property Act, a redeeming co-mortgagor would be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee whom he redeemed, and that he in turn would be liable to be redeemed by his co-mortgagor with respect to the latter’s share of the mortgaged property within the period of limitation prescribed for the redemption of the original mortgage or within a period of 12 years from the date when as a consequence of his redeeming, he obtained possession of the mortgage property.

We shall now refer briefly to the facts of the present appeal which arises out of a suit for redemption instituted by the appellant. The entire properties relative to this litigation originally belonged to three brothers who executed two othis on 10th April, 1881, in favour of two persons Unnamalai and Palaniandi, stipulating a period of six years for redemption.

The mortgagor’s right subsequently devolved by purchase on two brothers Radhakrishna Iyer and Balakrishna Iyer. They later divided the entirety of their joint family properties except with regard to their interest in the equity of redemption in the properties now forming the subject-matter of this litigation. Quoad such interest they continued thereafter, in view of the unequivocal character of the partition to be co-owners. While so, on 19th October, 1896, Balakrishna Iyer died leaving his widow and a daughter, the appellant herein. She after her mother’s death succeeded to the interest of Balakrishna Iyer.

On 14th February, 1922, Radhakrishna Iyer purported to sell the entire mortgagors’ interest in the said properties, to the first respondent’s father. Shortly after his purchase, the latter filed O.S. Nos. 361 and 352 of 1924 in the District Munsif’s Court, Tenkasi, for redemption of the two mortgages executed on 10th April, 1881. The suits were decreed and after payment of the amount due, the first respondent’s father obtained on 15th June, 1927 and 17th June, 1927 delivery of possession of the properties.

The appellant claiming to be in the position of co-mortgagor succeeding as she did to the interests of Balakrishna Iyer, filed the present suit on 20th July, 1956 for redemption, partition and separate possession of a half share in the properties covered by the two original mortgages. The substantial defence to the action was limitation ; and that has been upheld by the Courts below. The case for the appellant is that the first respondent being subrogated to the rights of the original mortgagees — Unnamalai and Palaniandi, her claim for redemption of her share will be governed by Article 148 of the Limitation Act. If that case were to be accepted it is conceded on behalf of the respondent, that the present suit must be regarded as being filed within time, in view of two written acknowledgments made by each one of the mortgagees’ sons on 10th May, 1906 and 10th July, 1923.

Mr S. V. Gopalakrishna Iyer appearing for the respondent, however contended that Article 144 and not Article 148 would be the proper provision of the Limitation Act that would apply to the present case. Article 144 is a residuary Article, in regard to suits for possession. We have, therefore to see first whether the suit in the present case is one for possession and secondly whether there is no other appropriate provision in the Limitation Act within which the claim will fall.

The first aspect of the question presents little difficulty. A claim by a non-redeeming co-mortgagor to recover his share of th