V. Ratnam, J.
1. Defendants 1, 3, 6, 13 and 18 are the appellants in this second appeal, which arises out of a suit for redemption instituted by one Sundararaja Iyengar, the first respondent herein, and one Soundaralakshmi who figured as the first plaintiff in the suit and on whose death, the first respondent herein was recorded as her legal representative.
2. The only question that had been seriously raised and strenuously contended before the Courts below has lost much of its substance in view of two judgments of this Court, to which I shall refer a little later. The point in controversy is whether the application of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1963 will have any effect on the right of the first respondent to seek redemption of the property in question. It is common ground that under Exhibits A-1 to A-S the kudiwaram in the properties was othied by the inamdar which is sought to be redeemed. It was contended by the appellants that the right of redemption was lost because under the vesting section, the inamdar had lost his right, and consequently could not maintain a suit for redemption. This had been negatived by the Courts below and hence the second appeal.
3. I may point out that this question no longer survives in view of two Bench decisions of this Court reported in Kuttachi and Ors. v. Muhammed Sultan Rowther, (1975) T.L.N.J. 451. disposed of on 8th July, 1975, by a Division Bench consisting of Veeraswami, CJ. and Natarajan, J., wherein it was held that though the hypotheca is situate in a part inam village notified and taken over under the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1963, still for purposes of redemption the jural relationship between the mortgagor and the mortgagee remained unaffected. In L.P.A. No. 1 of 1979 another Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Kailasam, CJ. and Balasubrahmanyan, J., took the same view though there is no reference to the judgment referred to earlier by me. On a consideration of the provisions of the Act XXVI of 1963, particularly the scope of the vesting section under Section 3(b) and the other related provisions for the grant of patta, the Bench observed:
The mortgagors' suit for redemption cannot be resisted on the ground that the estate had been taken over by the Government under Act XXVI of 1963. The relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee continues and there can be no legal objection to the mortgagors redeeming the property and getting possession from the usufructuary mortgagee.
Dealing with the proceedings for the grant: of patta, the Bench observed that the mere fact that patta had been either applied for or granted to the mortgagees will not in any manner affect the situation. It was further stated by the Bench that the question whether a person is entitled to redeem the property or not is totally outside the scope of the provisions of Act XXVI of 1963 and this in-the view of the Bench was one good reason-as to why the jural relationship should beheld to have been left intact to be dealt with by the civil Court.
4. In view of these judgments referred to, there is no substance in this second appeal, which fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.