K. Ramakrishnan, J.—The defeated plaintiffs in OS.No.73/1982 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery are the appellants herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for redemption of mortgage in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The case of the appellants in the plaint was that the suit properties belonged to the predecessor in interest of plaintiffs and defendants 10 to 12 namely Moideenkutty. He, as per Ext.A3 mortgage deed of the year 1094 ME, executed a possessary mortgage in favour of one Kuttikrishnan Nair. Thereafter the mortgagor executed Ext.A5 superior mortgage in respect of the plaint schedule properties in the year 1097 ME in favour of one Manikka Mudali. As per the terms of the superior mortgage, Manikka Mudali has to redeem the mortgage executed in favour of Kuttikrishnan Nair. Later Manikka Mudali assigned his right over the properties in favour of Kuttikrishnan Nair in the year 1098 as per Exts.A6 to A8. Kuttikrishan Nair was in possession of items 3 and 4 and other properties are in the possession of the tenants. According to the plaintiffs, Kuttikrishnan Nair got rights of the lessees in the year 1098 ME and obtained actual possession of items 1, 2 and 5 also. By subsequent assignments, item No.1 came into possession of the first defendant, item No.2 in the possession of the second defendant, item No.3 in the possession of the 3rd defendant, item 4 in the possession of the 5th defendant and item 5 in the possession of 4th and 5th defendants respectively. According to the plaintiffs, the mortgage executed in favour of Manikka Mudali of the year 1097 ME still subsists and they are entitled to get redemption of mortgage right by virtue of equity of redemption devolved on them on the death of their predecessor. Though a notice has been issued to the defendants, they did not surrender possession. That prompted the plaintiffs to file the suit for redemption of mortgage and recovery of possession with mesne profits.

2. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 to 9, 14, 16, 20 and 21 resisted the suit.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing the mortgage alleged in the plaint. According to him, item No.1 was taken by one Narayana Menon in the year 1105 ME on lease from Paliyam Tharavad. On his death, by virtue of the Will executed by him, his rights devolved on his daughter, who assigned her rights as per Ext.B9 dated 26.6.1953 in favour of one Ammaluamma. In partition in the family of Ammaluamma, the property was set apart to her daughter’s thavazhi. From the said thavazhy, the first defendant and his family members got the property by virtue of a mutual assignment deed. In a subsequent partition in the family of the first defendant, the property was set apart to the share of the first defendant and three others. They have obtained purchase certificate in the year 1976. According to him, Moitheenkutty was enjoying the property on a licence arrangement and he had surrendered the property in the year 1105 ME itself. Subsequent to that, it was taken on lease by Narayana Menon. The first defendant disputed the right of the plaintiffs to redeem the property and he also disputed that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Moitheenkutty and he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The second defendant filed a written statement in which he had admitted the mortgages mentioned in the plaint. But he contended that Kunhimohammed, son of Moitheenkutty relinquished the entire right over the property in favour of jenmi Paliyam Tharavadu in the year 1105 ME and item Nos. 1 and 2 were taken on lease by Narayana Menon, who is none other than her father, on lease from the Jenmi Paliyam Tharavadu. Subsequent to the death of her father, it devolved on her. By subsequent transactions , item No.1 has gone to the hands of strangers and she claims absolute possession of item No.2. According to her, the mortgage did not subsist and even if the mortgage subsists, she is entitled to get fixity of tenure under