S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 214 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint filed by the plaintiff/appellant are as follows:

2. (a) The suit property is an extent of 96 cents in Re-Survey No. 517/11 and 517/4 in Attoor Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District and the suit is for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 6/8 share in the suit property. The plaintiff/appellant stated that the suit property originally belonged to one Umaiamma Pillai. The said Umaiamma Pillai, who is the exclusive owner of the property, executed an usufructuary mortgage and Kuzhikkanam on 27.07.1120 M.E. (Corresponding to 1945) in favour of one Kochappi Nadar. The said Kochappi Nadar, the mortgagee, died on 28.10.1957 leaving behind his wife one Gnanavadivu Nadachi and eight children. One of whom is the plaintiff/appellant. On 28.04.1989, the mother of plaintiff/appellant died and her rights over the suit property also devolved on her children equally. Thus, the mortgage right vests with the eight children of Kochappi Nadar.

2. (b) The mortgage created in the year 1945 is time barred in view of the fact that the original mortgagor or his heirs do not come forward to redeem the property within time. The plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit property.

2. (c) The plaintiff/appellant purchased the rights of her three sisters by a registered sale deed dated 17.02.1994. Again by a registered sale deed dated 23.03.1994, the plaintiff/appellant has purchased the rights of other two sisters. Thus, the plaintiff/appellant has acquired the rights of all the children of the mortgagee, except two, namely, the brother and another sister of the plaintiff/appellant and hence, she is entitled to 6/8th share in the suit property and hence, the suit for partition of 6/8th share.

3. Though the plaintiff/appellant admits that there was an earlier suit in O.S. No. 245 of 1967 for redemption of mortgage, the plaintiff/appellant still sets up title in her on the ground that the suit for redemption in O.S. No. 245 of 1967 is not binding on her and other sisters, since all the daughters of the mortgagee are not made as parties in the suit for redemption, the suit in O.S. No. 245 of 1967 is not maintainable and the decree in the suit for redemption, according to the plaintiff/appellant, cannot stand in the way of the present suit for partition because of the mortgage being time barred and the title vests in the legal heirs of original mortgagee.

4. From the written statement filed by the 4th and 5th defendants, it can been seen that the specific stand taken by the fourth defendant is that after the death of Kochappi Nadar, the original mortgagee, the suit property was only in the possession of his widow and only son Muthunayagam, the second defendant in the suit. Since possession was with the wife and son of the mortgagee and the mortgagor is not aware of the other daughters of Kochappi Nadar, the mortgagor of the suit property namely Sankara Pillai filed a suit in O.S. No. 245 of 1967 for redemption of the othi deed and Kuzhikkanam deed against Gnanavadivu Nadachi, wife of mortgagee and her son, the second defendant in the suit and obtained a decree for redemption on 11.11.1968. It is their specific case that they had obtained delivery of the mortgaged property through Court on 04.08.1969 and the mortgagor was in possession and enjoyment of the entire land mortgaged. Hence, according to the fourth and fifth defendants, there was no subsisting mortgage.

5. The fourth defendant is the daughter of Sankara Pillai and the fifth defendant is the son of Sankara Pillai, the original mortgagor. It is the contention of the fourth and fifth defendants that the rubber trees were planted by the defendants and the trees are 20 years old. According to them, on the death of original mortgagor, namely, Sank