Chandra Reddi, J. - This second appeal which was referred to a Bench by Satyanarayana Rao, J., raises a question under the Limitation Act. The facts of the case he within a narrow compass and are not in dispute, the only controversy being whether it is Article 134 or 144 or 148 of the Limitation Act that applies to this case. In order to appreciate the point involved in the second appeal, it is necessary to refer to the facts briefly giving rise to this litigation. The suit properties were mortgaged by one Sivanandi Thevar usufructuarily to one Kamakshia Pillai for Rs. 225 on 14th February, 1891, the period fixed for redemption being 25 years. The mortgagee executed a simple mortgage of his othi right over the suit properties to Periaswami Odayar on 5th April, 1898, according to the plaintiff, while it is the defendants’ case that it was a mortgage of the properties themselves. Kamakshia Pillai executed another simple mortgage over the same properties to one Chidambara Aiyar for Rs. 290. Periaswami Odayar filed a suit on his mortgage, obtained a decree and in execution of the decree brought the properties to sale which were purchased by one Venkatarama Aiyar at the auction. Chidamb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document