In a suit for redemption and recovery of possession, the mortgagee or his successor-in-interest is a necessary party, and the suit must be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by the relevant law.

1. The defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the Original Suit on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi for the following reliefs.

"(a) declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of the othi property;

(b) directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the othi property to the plaintiff;

(c) directing the defendant to pay future profits to be determined under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC;

(d) directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff; and

(e) awarding such other reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. It was the contention of the respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court that the suit property had been mortgaged under a othi deed to one Muthukaruppan Ambalakaran and the said mortgagee permitted the appellant/defendant to put up a small house therein and reside in the said house. With the further contention that the mortgage debt got wiped out under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (of which year has not been mentioned), the respondent/plaintiff had filed the said suit for the above mentioned reliefs.

3. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant denying the plaint allegation that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property with the permission of the mortgagee and that he was there in possession and enjoyment of the property openly for more than fifty years on his own right and that his possession would amount to an adverse possession against the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant had also contended that the suit as framed was not maintainable because the original mortgagee was not made a party. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The District Munsif, Aranthangi, after trial, held that the defendants contention that he was in possession and enjoyment on his own right could not be believed and that he was there in possession only with the permission of the mortgagee. The trial Court had also held that the suit was filed well within the period of limitation under Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accordingly, the trial court allowed the suit and granted the reliefs as prayed for by its judgment and decree dated 08.11.1993. The Appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, namely A.S.No.49 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Pudukottai was also dismissed by its judgment and decree dated 22.08.1995 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, the appellant/defendant is before this Court.

5. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also by Mr.A.Chidambaranathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. Here is a case filed by the purchaser of the suit property from the mortgagor against the person who is said to be in possession of the suit property with the permission of the mortgagee. The respondent/plaintiff seems to have camouflaged the relief so as to make it appear as if it is a suit for declaration of title. A proper appreciation of the reliefs sought for by the respondent/plaintiff will show that the suit is nothing but a suit for redemption of mortgage (Othi) and for recovery of possession from the person who is alleged to be in possession of the property with the permission of the mortgagee (Othithar). Of course, the appellant/defendant had taken a plea in his defence that he was not in possession of the suit property with the permission of the mortgagee and that he had been in possession on his own right for well over the period of limitation. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the said plea of the appellant/defendant cannot be sustained. The said finding of fact recorded concurrently by the Courts below cannot be interfered with in this Second Appeal. Therefore, we have to procee