Judgment :- 1. The second defendant is the appellant. The suit is for redeeming a mortgage, Ext. A, dated 27.3.1038 alleged to have been executed by the karnavan of the plaintiff's family, Neelakantan Vasudevan Chakiar, in favour of Kadanthuruthel Varki Pothen. The mortgage right has become vested in the defendants. The mortgage amount was 50 chukrams and the mortgagee undertook to pay michavaram at the rate of 10 chs. a year and onakazhcha of the value of 4 chukrams. It was alleged in the plaint that michavaram and onakazhcha have been paid till 1101 and that they were in arrears from 1102 onwards. It was also alleged that a sum of 250 fanams was due to the defendants as value of improvements. The plaintiff sought to redeem the property after setting off the arrears of michavaram and onakazhcha against the mortgage amount and value of improvements. It was further alleged that the mortgage has been acknowledged by the defendants' predecessors-in-interest in sale deeds dated 28.4.1053 and 29.9.1059 and in a registered receipt dated 26.10.1089 and that the suit was therefore not barred by limitation. 2. The second defendant alone contested the suit. He contended that the plaint property belonged to Vennimala Devaswom, that the mortgage of 1038 alleged in the plaint was false, that the predecessors-in¬interest of the defendants were holding the property in their own right long prior to 1038, that the description in some documents that the property belonged to the plaintiff's family and that it was demised on kanom by the family was not correct, that even if the property belonged to the plaintiff's family and was demised on kanom by the family the kanom was irredeemable, that the receipt dated 26.10.1089 mentioned in the plaint is not valid, that the mukthiar-holder who is said to have taken the receipt was not competent to take it on behalf of the owner of the property, that the acknowledgments relied on by the plaintiff are not valid, that the suit was barred by limitation and that the improvements belonging to the defendants were worth more than Rs. 1,500. 3. The court below found that the property belonged to the plaintiff's family, that the mortgage alleged in the plaint was true, that it was acknowledged by the sale deeds dated 28.4.1053 and 21.9.1059 and the receipt dated 26.10.1089, that Ext. 1,500. 3. The court below found that the property belonged to the plaintiff's family, that the mortgage alleged in the plaint was true, that it was acknowledged by the sale deeds dated 28.4.1053 and 21.9.1059 and the receipt dated 26.10.1089, that Ext. A was a redeemable mortgage and not an irredeemable kanom and that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the property. The value of improvements was found to be Rs. 273-20 Chs. 4 cash. 4. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the mortgage Ext. A is not genuine and that the property was not demised under that document. The suit is, as stated already, for redeeming a particular mortgage mentioned in the plaint and it is argued that if the plaintiff has not been able to prove that mortgage he is not entitled to succeed in this suit. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the position that if the plaintiff seeks to redeem a particular mortgage he is bound to prove that mortgage and that if he fails to do so he cannot succeed in the suit even if it is found that the defendant is in possession of the property as a mortgagee. It was so held by the Travancore High Court in a number of decisions, i.e., Subramonia Iyer v. Ummini (9 T.L.J. 228), Mathu Varied v. Varghese Abraham (3 Select Unreported Decisions 59), Ayyappan v. Subramonian (19 T.L.J. 797), Raman v. Skaria (20 T.L.J. 475), Kesavan v. Kannan Nair (23 T.L.J. 800) and Vasudevaru v. Neelakantaru (27 T.L.J. 781). In 9 T.L.J. 228 which was a decision by K. Raman Menon, C.J. and K.G. Sesha Iyer, J. it was observed thus:- "Where the plaintiff does not tie himself down to any specific mortgage made in a particular year and the defendant in opposition denies the mortgage the real question is whether the defendant is mortgagee of the property in suit and in such circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to succeed if he proves that the land is held by the defendant as a mortgagee [vide also Bala v. Shiva (27 Bombay 271)]. In the present case, the plaintiff has come into court setting out his plaint that the mortgage sought to be redeemed was a mortgage of 15th Dhanu 1041; and the plaint gives all details connected with the alleged mortgage. In the present case, the plaintiff has come into court setting out his plaint that the mortgage sought to be redeemed was a mortgage of 15th Dhanu 1041; and the plaint gives all details connected with the alleged mortgage. It is clear law that where the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to possession by reason of the determination of a mortgage it lies on him to prove the mortgage which he asserts". The same view was taken in the other cases also. In 20 T.L.J. 475 Parameswaran Pillai, J. observed: "It is a well-settled rule of law that where a plaintiff sues to redeem a specific mortgage of a specific date, he cannot succeed unless he proves his case clearly and indefeasibly (see Subramonia Iyer v. Muravu Ummini - 9 T.L.J. 228). But when the plaintiff does not so tie himself down to a specific mortgage made at a particular time the burden of proof cannot be said to be wholly upon the plaintiff. In such a case the plaintiff's duty is to give prima facie evidence that the defendant is holding the property as mortgagee and if he succeeds in doing so he has discharged his burden. It would then be upon the defendants to show that the mortgage has become barred by limitation or that they have acquired the equity of redemption in any other manner". The same view was taken by the Cochin Chief Court (as it then was) in Mathai v. Varunni (22 Cochin 326). Sahasranama Iyer, J. observed in that case: "The plaintiff chose to deliberately base his suit upon a specific mortgage which he failed to prove. It is difficult to understand on what legal principle he can claim to be entitled to a decree upon the footing of some other mortgage, not at all relied on by him, nor even so much as referred to in his plaint. The cases in 2 Select Decisions 54, 18 Madras 462 and 18 Allahabad 403 are clear authorities in point against the appellant". The question was discussed at length by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of five judges in Gursaran v. Shib Singh (1943 Allahabad 393). The cases in 2 Select Decisions 54, 18 Madras 462 and 18 Allahabad 403 are clear authorities in point against the appellant". The question was discussed at length by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of five judges in Gursaran v. Shib Singh (1943 Allahabad 393). Following the decision in 18 Allahabad 403 the Full Bench held that in a suit to redeem a mortgage the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the specific mortgage which he sets up and if he fails to discharge this burden his suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. In this case, as stated already, the suit is to redeem a specific mortgage mentioned in the plaint, namely, mortgage dated 27.3.1038 alleged to have been executed by the karnavan of the plaintiff's family, Neelakantan Vasudevan Chakiar, in favour of Kadanthuruthel Varkey Pothan, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The terms of the mortgage deed are also set forth in the plaint and the prayer in the plaint is to redeem that specific mortgage. In the circumstances the only question for consideration is whether the plaintiff has proved this mortgage. The plaintiff has produced Ext. A as the counter-part of the mortgage deed mentioned in the plaint. The second defendant denies its genuineness. According to him it was fabricated by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit. 6. Ext. E is the copy of the settlement proceedings relating to the plaint property and other properties. A junior member of the plaintiff's family, Neelakantan Neelakantan, gave a statement in those proceedings in Thulam 1075. He said that his prior karnavan had given a statement before the Settlement Authorities to the effect that he had no objection to patta being issued for the property to the kanom tenant, that the karnavan had no authority to give such a statement and that patta ought to be issued in the name of the then karnavan Neelakantan Madhavan. Neelakantan Madhavan also gave a statement on 8.8.1075 to the effect that he was entitled to get patta for the property. On 30.8.1077 Neelakantan Neelakantan filed a statement before the Settlement Officer in which he said as follows: Neelakantan Neelakantan filed another statement before the Settlement Officer on 14.12.1077. In that he stated that the property has been given on kanom to Kadanthuruthu Pothan. It was also stated that the counter-part of the kanom deed had been destroyed. On 30.8.1077 Neelakantan Neelakantan filed a statement before the Settlement Officer in which he said as follows: Neelakantan Neelakantan filed another statement before the Settlement Officer on 14.12.1077. In that he stated that the property has been given on kanom to Kadanthuruthu Pothan. It was also stated that the counter-part of the kanom deed had been destroyed. " The property was at that time in the possession of Memana Kuruvilla Thomman, who had purchased it in court auction. In a statement given by him on 8.10.1077 he said that no dues were being paid to the family of Chakkiar for the property. 7. It is clear from the statement given by Neelakantan Neelakantan that the kanom deed relating to the property was not in the possession of the plaintiff's family when that statement was given. Neelakantan Neelakantan made a search for it and finally he stated that the document had been destroyed. The then karnavan of the family also did not produce the counterpart of the kanom deed when he gave his statement. The previous karnavan had given a statement agreeing that patta for the property might be given to the kanom tenant. If the original document was a redeemable mortgage it is not likely that the karnavan would have given such a statement. There is nothing in the statements given either by Neelakantan Neelakantan or by Neelakantan Madhavan to show that according to them the property has been out-standing on a redeemable mortgage. In any case there can be no doubt that Ext. A was not in the possession of the plaintiff's family at the time when the statements were given by the members of the family before the Settlement Officer. There is nothing in the evidence of the plaintiff to show how the document was missing and how he happened to get it. It has also to be noted that in the first statement given by Neelakantan Neelakantan on 30.8.1077 what was stated was that the mortgage was in favour of Kizhakkethuruthel Kuruvilla Itti, but in the statement given on 14.12.1077 he said that the mortgage was Kadanthuruthel Pothen. The court below has relied mainly on Exts. A(1), B and C. Ext. A(1) is a sale deed executed by Kadanthuruthel Pothen Varkey for one half of the plaint property on 26.4.1053. The court below has relied mainly on Exts. A(1), B and C. Ext. A(1) is a sale deed executed by Kadanthuruthel Pothen Varkey for one half of the plaint property on 26.4.1053. It is stated in the document that the property was obtained by Pothen from the Chakiar family.It was not stated in the document that the property was being enjoyed on mortgage or redeemable kanom under the plaintiff's family. There is no reference to any document of 1038. As already stated, the mortgage amount mentioned in Ext. A is 50 chukrams but the proportionate mortgage amount charged on one half of the property under Ext. A(1) is 35 chukrams. In the circumstances it cannot be said that Ext. A(1) goes to prove that the property has been demised on mortgage or redeemable kanom in 1038 and that Ext. A is genuine. In fact the apportionment of the kanom amount in Ext. A(1) only goes to disprove the genuineness of Ext. A. Ext. B is a subsequent sale deed relating to the property. It is dated 21.9.1059. In that also there is no reference to the document of 1038. It is stated that the property belonged to Chakiar Ext. A(1) and B proceed on the basis that the property was being held on irredeemable kanom. Ext. C is a registered receipt executed by Neelakantan Vasudevan, the karnavan of the plaintiff's family on 26.10.1089 in favour of one Kovoor Nainan Thommi who purported to act as the mukthiar-holder of Memana Thomas Anna who was the then holder of the property. There is nothing to show that Nainan Thommi was competent to take the receipt on behalf of Thomas Anna. The receipt purports to be for Rs. 6 Chs.19 paid by Thommi as arrears of michavaram, onakazhcha and renewal fee. In Ext. C also there is no reference to the document of 1038. It is only stated that the property has been demised on kanom to Kadanthuruthil Pothen. It has also to be noted that Ext. C receipt was executed more than 50 years after the date of the alleged mortgage of 1038 which is the period under the Travancore Limitation Act for redeeming a mortgage. In any case, it cannot be said that Ext. C proves the genuineness of Ext. A. A perusal of Ext. It has also to be noted that Ext. C receipt was executed more than 50 years after the date of the alleged mortgage of 1038 which is the period under the Travancore Limitation Act for redeeming a mortgage. In any case, it cannot be said that Ext. C proves the genuineness of Ext. A. A perusal of Ext. A convinces us that it is not a genuine document and that it was fabricated for the purpose of this case. Some of the letters and figures in the document are not of the nature of letters and figures as written during the period in which the document is alleged to have been written. There is marked difference between the letters and figures given in Ext. A and those in Ext. A(1). Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration we have no doubt that Ext. A is not a genuine document and that it was brought into existence for the purpose of this case. There is no other evidence to prove the alleged mortgage of 1038. It has, therefore, to be held that the plaintiff has not proved the mortgage which he seeks to redeem. The evidence in the case only shows that the property was originally demised on kanom from the plaintiff's family. There is no knowing whether it is a redeemable mortgage or an irredeemable kanom. Even if it was a redeemable mortgage there is nothing to show on what date the mortgage was executed and whether the claim under it was not barred on the date of suit. It is, however, not necessary to go into those questions in this suit which is for redeeming a specific mortgage, mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff has not proved that mortgage. We, therefore, allow this appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the court below dismiss the suit with costs in both the courts. Allowed.