A suit for pre-emption must be filed within one year from the date of sale registration; delays bar the action under Article 97 of the Limitation Act.

1S. A. No. 591 of 1990 arises out of O. S. No. 404 of 1983 and the legal representative of the defendant is the appellant. S.A. No. 606 of 1990 is against the decree in O. S. No. 27 of 1984 and legal representative of the 2nd defendant is the appellant. These two suits were jointly tried. O. S. No. 404 of 1983 is for redemption of a mortgage Ext. A1 dated 27-7-1965 and a purakkadam Ext. A2 dated 26-2-1969 in favour of the 2nd defendant's brother. The brother assigned the mortgage right to the 2nd defendant under Ext. B3 dated 19-12-1968. O. S. No. 27 of 1984 is a suit to set aside a sale deed Ext B5 dated 7-6-1969 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, and to direct the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs for the same consideration.

2The plaint schedule property, 9 cents and two buildings, was allotted to the mother who was the 1st plaintiff in O. S. No. 404 of 1983 for life (the 2nd plaintiff in O. S. No. 27 of 1984) under Ext. A3 partition deed dated 23-1-1961 with the vested remainder to the 6 children. Under the provisions of that document the mother was given a life estate and she was allowed to encumber the property upto the extent of Rs. 300/-. Ext. A1 mortgage was in respect of the plaint property as also another property which absolutely belonged to the 2nd plaintiff therein who is one of her sons. Thereafter, the mortgagee assigned the right to the 2nd defendant under Ext. B3 dated 19-12-1968 and a purakkadam Ext. A2 was executed on 26-2-1969 fixing a period of 5 years. A notice was issued to the mortgagee seeking redemption and the mortgagee-2nd defendant sent a reply notice stating that one of the owners of the equity of redemption had assigned her share to; him under Ext. A5 dated 19-10-1983 and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem the plaint schedule property. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 404 of 1983 for redemption of the mortgage and purakkadam as also O. S. No. 27 of 1984 to enforce the right of pre emption which the 1st plaintiff therein had under the provisions of Ext. A3 thereby asking for setting aside Ext. B5 sale deed and to execute a sale deed in his favour by the 2nd defendant for the very same consideration. These two suits were jointly tried.

3The main contention of the 2nd defendant was that he having become a part - owner of the equity of redemption under Ext. B5 sale deed dated 7-6-1969, the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem the property and that their right, if any, is only to file a suit for partition and redemption as the integrity of the mortgage has been split. In O. S.27 of 1984 among other contentions, the 2nd defendant also raised a contention that the suit is barred under Art.97 of the Limitation Act. The Trial Court decreed both the suits as prayed for. The Trial Court held that the suit O. S. No. 27 of 1984 is not barred by limitation and that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to get a sale deed executed in his favour on the basis of the right conferred under Ext. A3 partition deed. This decree was confirmed by the appellate court also. The legal representative of the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 27 of 1984 has filed these two appeals.

4Before this Court counsel for the appellant raised only one contention, i. e. that the suit O. S. No. 27 of 1984 to set aside Ext. B5 sale deed and to have a sale deed executed in favour of the 1st plaintiff for the very same consideration is barred by limitation as it is beyond the time prescribed under Art.97 of the Limitation Act. According to him, if O. S. No. 27 of 1984 is barred by limitation, then the redemption decree also will have to be vacated as ha becomes a part - owner of the equity of redemption and the plaintiffs will not be entitled to redeem the whole mortgage. In that view of the matter, the only question that is to be decided is as to whether O. S. No. 27 of 1984 is barred under Art.97 of the Limitation Act.

5As stated earlier, the plaint property belonged to the mother