The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the old and new Limitation Acts in determining the period for redemption and the entitlement to the benefits under the Agriculturists Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2005 passed in A.S.No.92 of 2002 by the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2002 passed in O.S.No.61 of 1983 by the Principal District Munsiff, Kuzhithurai).

1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the suit for redemption, the present second appeal is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:- The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Padmanabhapillai and Narayana Pillai, Panthakkal house Kurumathoor. On 21.12.1903, the said Padmanabhapillai and Narayana Pillai mortgaged the property to Unmayudayan Pethiru, Unmayudayan Masilamony and Kaliannamuthu. The said mortgage was followed by 2 purakkadams dated 24.02.1912 and 13.02.1909, respectively executed by the jenmies. The entire jenmom right over the plaint schedule property was purchased by Rajamma under two sale deeds dated 12.12.119 and 25.04.1119 M.E., from the successors in interest of Padmanabha Pillai, Narayana Pillai, the mortgagor and released the mortgage deed from the heirs of Unmayudayan Masilamony and Kaliannamuthu in respect of 2/3 share. She had to release 1/3 share from Unmayudayan Pethiru. The rights of Rajamma devolved on her son, namely Isac. The said Isac gave Othi to the plaintiff with a direction to redeem the mortgage in the name of Unmayudayan Pethiru. In the meanwhile, the said Pethiru gave a sub mortgage on 11.02.1124 M.E., to the fifth defendant, and accordingly, the fifth defendant was in possession of the property. The property sought to be redeemed in the plaint 'B' Schedule property. The plaintiff is an agriculturist and he is entitled to all the benefits under the Agriculturists Relief Act. No mortgage money is liable to be deposited, since the mortgage money has been wiped out under the Agriculturist Relief Act. Inspite of the repeated demands, the defendants are not amenable and hence, the suit.

4. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked and on the side of the defendants D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B29 were marked.

5. It is the contention of the defendants 1 to 4 that Rajamma did not purchase 2/3 share of the suit property from the heirs of Naryana Pillai. The plaintiff has not produced the sale deed to prove the same. The mortgage right belonging to Masilamony and Kali Annamuthu had devolved on Abraham by subsequent document. Rajamma also did not get release of the mortgage right. Snehappu was never in possession of any portion of the suit property. The defendants 1 to 4 are the heirs of Pethiru. The said Pethiru had executed a sub mortgage in 1124 to Abraham and he was in possession of the same. While so, the defendants 1 to 4 filed a suit in O.S.No.386 of 1980 and got a decree for redemption on 14.09.1982 and Abraham has filed appeal in A.S.No.143 of 1982 of Sub Court, Kuzhithurai and the same is pending. The plaint mortgage dated 21.09.1982, there is a term of five years that period is over and the superior mortgage has become infructuous and the plaintiff has no right to redeem. The exemption from limitation pleaded is not correct. The mortgage had become time barred and the heirs of Pethirus. The defendants 1 to 4 have obtained jenmon right over the suit property. In the sub-mortgage of the year 1124 Pethiru has not admitted his liability to be redeemed by the owner. The plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts. The plaintiff is not a debtor as defined in the Act.

6. The defendants 7 to 11 has also adopted the written statement of the defendants 1 to 4.

7. Based on the above pleading, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Has the plai