JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.30 of 2006, whose suit for redemption was dismissed by the trial Court, upon affirmation of the said dismissal by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.11 of 2012, has come up with this second appeal.

2.According to the plaintiff, the suit properties belonged to one Ramachandran Pillai, a mentally ill person looked after by his maternal uncle, Sanmugasundaram Pillai, as his curator. The said Sanmugasundaram Pillai, in the course of management of the properties, had executed two mortgage deeds, covering to an extent of 21 acres and 24 cents of agricultural land in favour of one Ramaiya Konar, S/o.Thirumalai Konar. The consideration for the usufructuary mortgages dated 15.11.1966 and 02.07.1967, was Rs.3,500/- and 1,500/-

respectively.

3.The said Ramaiya Konar assigned those two mortgages to the defendant in the suit, namely, Velu under two registered instruments dated 15.06.1985. The plaintiff would further contend that the original owner, Ramachandran Pillai died unmarried and his parents predeceased him. The suit properties devolved on his maternal uncle, Sanmugasundaram Pillai, who also, according to the plaintiff, died issueless leaving behind his brother, Ramalingam Pillai to succeed to his estate. It is the further claim of the plaintiff that the said Ramalingam Pillai had inherited the mortgaged properties and had sold an extent of 1 acre 50 cents in S.No.719/1 and 1 acre 13 cents in S.No.719/4-1 to one Lakshmi. The said Lakshmi had paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the defendant and had obtained redemption of the mortgage, insofar as those two items of properties measuring an total extent of 2 acre 63 cents were concerned. Referring to the said act of the defendant, the plaintiff would claim that the defendant is estopped from denying the title of Ramalingam Pillai over the suit properties as the successor in interest. Contending that since the purchase made by the plaintiff is subject to the mortgage, he is entitled to redeem the mortgage. The plaintiff would seek redemption of three items of properties that were purchased by him from Ramalingam Pillai under the sale deed, Ex.A5 dated 06.09.2005. Though the plaintiff had sought for redemption of three items of properties, namely, an extent of 3.24 acres in S.No.3/1, 5.52 acres in S.No.345/2 and 5.98 acres in S.No.671, he had offered to pay the entire mortgage money of Rs.5,000/-.

4.This action for redemption was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit as framed is not maintainable. It is also claimed that the maternal uncle of Ramachandran Pillai, namely, Sanmugasundaram Pillai did not die issueless. He had in fact left behind his children. It was also claimed that there was one sister to Sanmugasundaram Pillai, by name, Thangatthammal and her heirs would also have a share in the property. The defendant would further claim that he had entered into a registered agreement of sale with the heirs of Sanmugasundaram Pillai and therefore, the plaintiff cannot redeem the entirety of the property. It was further contended that the plaintiff, who came to Court with the false case suppressing the existence of other legal heirs of Ramachandran Pillai, the original owner, is not entitled to redemption. It is the further case of the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation.

5.At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W1 and one Sanmugasundaram, was examined as P.W2. The defendant examined himself as D.W1 and one Thanam, was examined as D.W2. Exs.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendant.

6.Upon a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge concluded that Sanmugasundaram Pillai had in fact married and had left behind his children. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff being a purchaser from Ramalingam Pillai cannot claim absolute ownership over the property. The trial Court further found that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court also concl