JUDGMENT

The defendants who suffered a decree for redemption are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the court below.

2. Since the solitary question raised is regarding limitation, the facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are being referred to.

3. The suit was one for redemption. It is not in dispute that by Annexure A2 document dated 8.2.1958 the property involved in the suit was mortgaged to the predecessor in interest of the defendants. Later a purakkadam deed dated 9.4.1962 was also executed. These facts are not disputed. The suit was laid for redemption. Originally the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement raising several contentions. The main contention was one pertaining to limitation.

4. Before the court below, issues were raised and evidence was adduced. P.W.1 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs and marked Exts.A1 to A3. The defendants had D.Ws. 1 and 2 examined and Exts. B1 to B1(f) marked. The trial court found all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and passed a preliminary decree for redemption. The appellate court confirmed the same.

5. The young learned co