ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises against the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court, made on 22.7.1993 in S.A. No. 616/85.

3. The admitted facts are that item 6 of the Plaint Schedule Property belonged to the Tarawad. The Karanawan had executed the possessory mortgage as per Exhibit B-1 for a sum of Rs. 200/-. The appellant Ithiridutty Appachi filed suit No. OS-114/70 in the Court of Munsiff, Pattambi for redemption of the mortgage, Exhibit B-1. The property was redeemed by the appellant. Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed for partition of the plaint schedule property in their respective shares. We are not concerned in this case with other items. We are concerned only with respect to item 6 of the mortgage property. Based on the contentions, it was found and accepted by the trial Court and the District Court that since the appellant had redeemed the property, he subrogated himself into the shoes of the mortgagee. Since the respondents have not redeemed the mortgage within a period of 30 years from the date of execution of Exhibit B-1, the appellant has become absolute owner of the property. As a re