Judgment :- 1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit was for redemption of the mortgage on payment of proportionate mortgage amount and value of improvements. The plaint property and some paddy lands were mortgaged from the tarwad of the plaintiff in the year 1083 under Ext. B in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. A Purakkadam Ext. C had also been executed in favour of the mortgagee in 1087. The defendants are thus in possession of the property as mortgagees. In a partition in the plaintiff's tarwad the equity of redemption was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The mortgagees had splitted the mortgage amount and the amount mentioned in the plaint was the mortgage security charged on the plaint property. Ext. D is the partition deed in the defendants' tarwad under which the mortgage amount was thus apportioned. A sum of 1566 fanams was the amount thus charged on the plaint property. The other properties in the mortgage had been redeemed by the plaintiff's sister under Ext. E release dated 5.9.1119. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage on payment of the mortgage amount and value of improvements. 2. The 1st defendant contended that the plaintiff's tarwad had no manner of right over the plaint property. According to her the suit property belonged to Chemmankuzhi tarwad which became extinct sometime about the year 1055. Krishnan Kali of the plaintiff's tarwad managed to pay the Sirkar tax for the property and got mutation of name. By the year 1067 the Sirkar started escheat proceedings. The plaintiff's tarwad was not prepared to pay the Vilayardham for the issue of fresh Patta. The property was then in the possession of the predecessor of the defendants under Ext. B mortgage and Ext. C Purakkadam mentioned in the plaint. The mortgagee was therefore directed to deposit the Vilayardham. He did so and got Patta for the property. It was therefore contended that whatever rights the plaintiff's tarwad had over the suit property passed to the defendant's tarwad and that they had perfected title by adverse possession and limitation. The suit for redemption was therefore resisted. It was also contended that if for any reason redemption was allowed the defendants were to get the mortgage amount, the Vilayardham paid and the value of improvements effected from 1055. 3. The suit for redemption was therefore resisted. It was also contended that if for any reason redemption was allowed the defendants were to get the mortgage amount, the Vilayardham paid and the value of improvements effected from 1055. 3. The plaintiff by a replication contended that the escheat proceedings were not binding on him, that the 1st defendant was estopped fro raising such a contention having accepted the mortgage and Purakkadam from the plaintiff's tarwad, that in Ext. D partition in the defendants' tarwad, the mortgage right alone had been dealt with and that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree as prayed for. The trial court accepted the defence plea and dismissed the suit. In appeal, the learned Second Judge, Trivandrum, reversed the trial court decree and allowed the plaintiff recovery of possession on deposit of proportionate mortgage amount mentioned in the plaint, the Vilayardham of 267 fanams and the value of improvements which came to Rs. 1,005 -17 Chs.-11 cash. The appeal is against this decree. 4. The 1st defendant had admitted Ext. B mortgage and Ext. C Purakkadam. Ext. B also refers to an earlier mortgage executed by a Karnavan of the plaintiff. There can therefore be no doubt that the defendants' predecessor came into possession of the property by virtue of the mortgage from the plaintiff's tarwad. The defendants could not therefore contend against the title of the mortgagor. It is true that the Sirkar had started escheat proceedings and directed the mortgagee to pay the Vilayardham. Ext. II copy of the Lands Register kept in the Central Office would indicate this. But whatever proceedings started by the Sirkar will not affect the mortgagor's right and if for any reason the mortgagee had been compelled to pay any amount with the object of protecting the mortgagor's interest, the mortgagee could claim a refund of that at the time of redemption. The real position of escheat proceedings have been considered in Sankaran v. The Dewan of Travancore, by the Travancore High Court in 17 T.L.R. 63. The real position of escheat proceedings have been considered in Sankaran v. The Dewan of Travancore, by the Travancore High Court in 17 T.L.R. 63. It was mentioned there that in escheat proceedings the Sirkar claims as heir under the last owner, that the officers of the Sirkar in such cases act more as agent of the Sirkar in its capacity of heir and not in any such public or official capacity as to give to their proceedings the effect of destroying rights to property and their dealings cannot be allowed to defeat the claims of others who question the said heir's right to dispossess them of the property said to have been escheated. There is no evidence in this case to show that the Jenmom right of the property belonged to any tarwad other than that of the plaintiff. At any rate the plaintiff's tarwad was able to give possession of the plaint property to its mortgagee and that would show that the plaintiff's tarwad was in possession of this property. This property had been mortgaged to the defendant's ancestor along with other properties and those properties had been surrendered by the defendants' tarwad as per Ext. E release. Escheat proceedings said to have been conducted by the Sirkar would not destroy the rights of the plaintiffs' tarwad and so that tarwad would be competent to redeem the mortgage. The decree thus passed by the lower appellate court is correct and in confirmation thereof this appeal is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.