This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant

in O.S.No.161/1999 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge

(Jr.Dn.), Malur (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court')

challenging the divergent Judgment and Decree of the

First Appellate Court in R.A.No.316/2006 by which it

reversed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court

dated 30.09.2006 and decreed the suit for redemption of

the mortgage.

2.

The parties shall henceforth be referred as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3.

The suit in O.S.No.161/1999 was filed for a

Judgment and Decree directing the defendant to receive

the mortgage money and to return the mortgage deed

after duly endorsing its discharge and to deliver possession

4

of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed

that the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Seethanayakanahalli

village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk measuring 2 acres

belonged to Muniyamma, the wife of plaintiff No.1 and the

mother of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiff No.1 executed

a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendant on

24.09.1962 mortgaging the suit property for a sum of

Rs.400/-. It was understood that the defendant shall enjoy

the usufructs and appropriate the same towards the

interest and the period of mortgage was five years from

the date of execution of the deed. The plaintiffs claimed

that after the expiry of five years, the defendant requested

the plaintiff No.1 to permit him to continue in possession

of the suit property. However, in the year 1989, the

defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.163/1989 for the relief of

declaration that he had perfected his title to the suit

property by adverse possession and sought perpetual

injunction to protect his possession. The said suit was

decreed in part on 06.04.1999 and possession of the

defendant was protected. After disposal of the suit, the

5

plaintiffs caused a notice dated 22.4.1999 to receive the

mortgage money of Rs.400/- and deliver back possession.

Since the defendant failed to comply, the plaintiffs

deposited a sum of Rs.400/- before the Court and hence,

sought redemption of mortgage and delivery of possession.

4.

The defendant contested the suit and denied

the averments of the plaint. He claimed that the suit for

redemption is filed after 30 years and hence it is barred by

law of limitation. He further claimed that since the

plaintiffs had failed to seek redemption of the mortgage

and in view of the decree of perpetual injunction granted in

O.S.No.163/1989, he had perfected his title to the suit

property by adverse possession.

5.

Based on these rival contentions, the Trial

Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether plaintiffs prove that the wife of

plaintiff No.1 and mother of plaintiffs No.2 and

3 by name Muniyamma has executed a

registered possession mortgage in favour of

defendant on 24.9.1962 for consideration of

Rs.400/- for a period of 5 years?

6

2) Whether plaintiffs further prove that the

Muniyamma and defendant had agreed in the

mortgage deed that the defendant has to

enjoy the schedule property in favour of

mortgage amount of Rs.400/- for 5 years and

then redeem it?

3)

Whether plaintiffs further prove that they

approached

defendant

to

receive

the

mortgage amount and to execute the redeem

of mortgage deed in their favour?

4)

Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get redeem

the suit schedule property?

5)

Whether plaintiffs prove that they are entitled

for delivery of possession of suit schedule

property in their favour?

6)

Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they

are entitled for mesne profit from the date of

suit till delivery of possession? If so at what

rate?

7)

Whether defendant prove that the suit of the

plaintiff is barred by limitation?

8)

Whether defendant further prove that he has

become the absolute owner and he is in

absolute possession of suit schedule property

since the limitation period for redemption of

mortgage has expired?

7

9) What reliefs the parties are entitled to?

10) What order or decree?

6.

The Trial Court treated issue