1. The question to be decided is, whether the suit is. barred under Article 134, Lim. Act. The plaintiff seeks to redeem a mortgage made in 1865, It was created by the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour of one Kunhammu, defendant 1s father. The properties mortgaged changed hands until finally they passed to the defendant 2 under a sale-deed of 1894 (Ex. 4). The mortgagee in his very first dealing with these properties treated them as belonging to himself, In each of the documents that followed, the recitals that were made were consistent with this position, The learned Subordinate Judge has found, upon a scrutiny of these documents, that defendant 2 had reason to believe, and in fact believed, that his vendor was absolutely entitled to the properties. If that be so, the inference is reasonable, that what he intended to purchase was an absolute property and not merely the interest of the mortgagee : see the judgment of Bakewell, J., in Muthaya v. Kanthappa [1918] 34 M.L.J. 431. We may refer to two exhibits, Ex, 3 of 1892, the sale-deed in favour of defendant 2s vendor and next Ex, 4 the sale-deed in his own favour. Ex. 3 says:

I have absolutely sold you the properties for