The second appeal arises out of the order passed in a final decree application in a suit for redemption of mortgage.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 655 of 1981 was filed by G. Kochuraman Nadar and six others. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings, the said Kochuraman Nadar died and his legal heirs have been brought on record as Plaintiffs 8 to 12 on 07.02.2003.

3. The application in I.A.No.220 of 1999 in O.A.No.655 of 1981 was filed seeking for passing a final decree on the basis of the preliminary decree and the same was allowed on 24.06.2003. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent in the application/sole defendant in the suit filed an appeal in A.S.No.75 of 2003 and the appeal was allowed on 28.03.2005 reversing the fair and decreetal order dated 24.06.2003 in I.A.No.220 of 1999. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners in the final decree application have come forward with the present second appeal.

4. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, in the suit for redemption, a preliminary decree was passed as early as on 16.08.1983. The trial Court directed the plaintiffs to deposit Rs.750/- on or before 16.10.1983. Against the said order, the sole defendant in the suit filed an appeal in A.S.No.133 of 1983 and the appeal was ultimately dismissed on 28.02.1992. Thereafter, the sole defendant preferred a second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.912 of 1992 which was also dismissed on 12.04.1996. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have deposited the amount on 23.03.1999 and filed the application in I.A. Nos.220 of 1999 seeking to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree and it was allowed on 24.06.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the sole defendant filed A.S. No. 75 of 2003 before the first appellate Court and it was allowed on 28.03.2005. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in the suit.

5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants is that even though the trial court directed them to deposit the amount on or before 16.10.1983, they could not make the deposit inasmuch as the defendant/ respondent herein has filed A.S. No. 133 of 1983 and on its dismissal, she has filed Second Appeal before this Court in S.A. No. 912 of 1992. Therefore, only after dismissal of the second appeal on 12.04.1996, the plaintiffs could deposit the amount on 23.03.1999. In any event, the final decree application in I.A. No. 220 of 1999 was filed within three years from the date on which this Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the defendant/respondent namely 12.04.1996 and therefore the application has been filed within time. It is further argued that the delay in payment of money within two months from the date of passing of the preliminary decree is immaterial as the mortgage in question is only a usufructuary mortgage. When it is a usufructuary mortgage, there is no period prescribed for payment of money and the period of limitation will commence only from the date of deposit. In this case, the plaintiffs/ appellants have deposited the amount within three years from the date of judgment of this Court in the second appeal preferred by the respondent/ defendant. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that this Court initially granted an interim stay in the second appeal and it was later made absolute on 27.08.1992 and therefore, even during the pendency of the second appeal, the plaintiffs/ appellants could not deposit the money in view of the order of interim stay granted by this Court. In any view of the matter, as per the various orders passed by this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court, there is no time limit prescribed for deposit of money in so far as usufructuary mortgage is concerned.

6. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 1017 (Achaldas Durgaji Oswal v. Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda) and also an unreported jud