ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed by the defendants seeking to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.83,97,914/-

against the petitioners towards their share of contribution regarding the mortgaged debt discharged by him on 26.06.2015. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the petitioners' 2 and 3 viz., Samiyappan who is the brother of the respondent availed the loan from Punjab National Bank by mortgaging the joint family property. When the said Samiyappan committed default, the Bank had taken coercive steps against the mortgaged family property and in order to save the family property, the respondent/plaintiff discharged the entire outstanding loan amount in the name of Samiyappan to the tune of Rs.61,30,000/- with interest and redeemed the family property. The respondent in his plaint had averred that the payment made by the respondent to bank to save the family property was known to the petitioners and as they failed to pay their share of the said loan amount discharged by the respondent, he was constrained to file a suit against the petitioners for recovery of their share of discharged loan amount together with interest.

3. The petitioners/defendants filed an application for rejection of the plaint by raising the plea of limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the other sharers. According to the petitioners, the respondent discharged the mortgaged debt by paying amount due in the name of Samiyappan on 05.05.2015 and the present suit has been filed only on 31.07.2019 well beyond the limitation period of three years. It was also submitted that the suit is a simple suit for recovery of money and the suit claim cannot be treated as an amount due under the mortgage and therefore, the question of applying twelve years limitation period does not arise. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners the suit is barred by limitation. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent claimed in the plaint averment that they had paid the amount due to the Panjab National Bank and hence, the said Bank is a necessary party to the litigation. It was further submitted that another brother of respondent/plaintiff viz., Thanigaivel was also a partner of business, which was carried out by deceased Samiyappan and hence, he is also a necessary party to the suit. In nutshell, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., Bank and other sharers.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent/plaintiff discharged the mortgaged debt in the name of deceased Samiyappan under whom the petitioners are claiming right. The learned counsel by relying on Sections 92 and 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 submitted that on discharge of mortgage debt, the respondent acquired right of charge over the property mortgaged and hence, the limitation for recovery of the amount based on charge is twelve years. The learned counsel also relied on the Full Bench judgement of this Court reported in AIR 1964 Mad 269 (FB) (Vallamma Champaka vs. Sivathanu Pillai) for the proposition that a person who discharged the mortgage debt steps into shoes of the mortgagee and he is entitled to recover contribution and the limitation for enforcing the right to contribution is twelve years under Article 62 of the Limitation Act 1963.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reads as follows:-