J U D G M E N T

(Heard through Video conferencing)

This second appeal has been filed challenging the reversal findings of the lower appellate court namely Sub Court, Chidambaram by its Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2006 passed in A.S.No.9 of 2005 by which the suit filed by the Appellants in O.S.No.391 of 1993 before the Principal Munsif Court, Chidambaram has been dismissed by reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 08.04.2004 passed in favour of the Appellants/plaintiffs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit O.S.No.391 of 1993.

3. The plaintiffs claim that they are the legal heirs of Krishnamoorthi Padayachi. Tamil selvan and Dhakshnamoorthy are his sons who are the first and second plaintiffs and another son of Krishnamoorthi Padayachi by name Paramanandham, predeceased Krishnamoorthi Padayachi leaving behind Vairam Ammal and Saroja as his legal heirs who are the plaintiffs 3 and 4 in the suit O.S.No.391 of 1993. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died leaving behind the fifth, sixth and seventh plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The defendant Dhanapal died pending the second appeal and his legal heirs are the 2nd to 7th respondents who were brought on record in this second appeal.

4. The suit was filed for redemption of a registered mortgage deed dated 11.05.1965 which was executed by Krishnamoorthy Padayachi in favour of the defendant Dhanapal in respect of the property measuring 0.09 cents out of 0.20 cents in R.S.No.35/27, Veeramudaya Natham Village, Sethiathope Sub Registration District which is the suit schedule property. A consequential relief of possession was also sought for.

Under the usufructuary mortgage deed, Krishnamoorthy borrowed a sum of Rs.200/- from the defendant and handed over possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant by way of security. The suit for redemption of mortgage deed was filed by the plaintiffs since according to them, the defendant failed to redeem the mortgage, despite the plaintiffs readiness and willingness to discharge the loan. It is also their case that they had issued legal notices dated 02.04.1993 and 02.09.1993 to the defendant demanding the defendant to return the original mortgage deed with the discharge endorsement and put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit schedule property. According to them, since the defendant did not come forward with any response, the plaintiffs deposited Rs.200/- and sought for redemption of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.391 of 1993. According to the plaintiffs, the suit was filed within 30 years from the date of mortgage and hence, it is within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 61 of the Limitation Act.

5. The defendant Dhanabal filed written statement and additional written statement stating as follows:

(a) He has denied the execution of the mortgage deed dated

11.05.1965 by Krishnamoorthy Padayachi in his favour;

(b) He has denied the title of Krishnamoorthy Padayachi over the suit schedule property;

(c) The plaintiffs alone are not only the legal representatives of the deceased Krishnamoorthy Padayachi and without impleading all his legal representatives, the suit is liable to be dismissed;

(d) The defendant has been enjoying the suit property for more than 30 years and therefore, the suit is not maintainable;

(e) There is no relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

6. Issues were framed by the trial court. The second plaintiff Dakshnamoorthy was examined as PW1 and the defendant Dhanapal was examined as DW1 before the trial court.

7. The trial court by its Judgment and decree dated 08.04.2004 in O.S.No.391 of 1993 decreed the suit as prayed for in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 08.04.2004 passed in O.S.No.391 of 1993 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram, the defendant filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Chidambaram in A.S.No.9 of 2005. By its Ju