Judgment :- 1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The facts may be briefly stated as follows: The plaint schedule properties belonged to Thattarathu family and were mortgaged with possession in the year 1085 under Ext. J. The mortgage right now vests in the 1st defendant. The mortgagee had given the properties on Pathivaram lease and the lessee's rights vested in the plaintiff at the time of suit. The plaintiff had also taken assignment of a Melotti right executed by one Velayudhan Pillai Neelakanta Pillai of the Thattarathu family in favour of a stranger, directing redemption of the mortgage of 1085. On the strength of the Melotti right, the plaintiff instituted the suit. The main contention was that the Melotti was invalid as the same was executed by a junior member of Thattarathu family and that it was unsupported by consideration and tarwad necessity. The 1st defendant also claimed to have acquired the equity of redemption over the property. On these grounds he resisted redemption. 2. The 1st defendant in this case had instituted another suit O.S. 341/17 against the plaintiff for recovery of possession on the basis of the Pathivaram lease. The plaint allegations in O.S. 548 of 1117 constitute the defence in O.S. 341/117. The two suits were tried together in the trial court. O.S. 548 of 1117 was dismissed on the ground that the Melotti was executed by an incompetent person. It was also held that the 1st defendant was not entitled to question the consideration and necessity for the Melotti. The plaintiff in O.S. 548 of 1117 filed A.S. No. 517 of 1121 in the District Court of Mavelikara against this decree. His appeal was allowed on the ground that the 1st defendant-mortgagee could not question the competency of the person who executed the Melotti. This Second Appeal is from the decree in A.S. 517 of 1121. 3. In the connected suit O.S. No. 341 of 1117, the trial court gave a decree for recovery of properties on deposit of the amount due under the Melotti. Mesne profits was also allowed from the date of deposit of such amount. The 1st defendant in that case filed an appeal in the District Court as A.S. 516 of 1121. 3. In the connected suit O.S. No. 341 of 1117, the trial court gave a decree for recovery of properties on deposit of the amount due under the Melotti. Mesne profits was also allowed from the date of deposit of such amount. The 1st defendant in that case filed an appeal in the District Court as A.S. 516 of 1121. The two appeals were heard together and it was held in A.S. 516 of 1121 that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the property from the defendant. The plaintiff in O.S. 341 of 1117 has filed second appeal 12 of 51 from that decree. The two second appeals were heard together. 4. The main question arising for decision in both the second appeals is the one relating to the validity of the Melotti. The lower appellate court held that the appellant was not entitled to question the competency of the respondent to redeem him. The mortgagee in possession is bound to surrender possession only to a person entitled to redeem and not to any person who institutes a suit for redemption. As held in A.S.129 of 50 of this Court a short note of which appears in 1953 KLT Short Notes 18: "A mortgagee is entitled to be in possession of property mortgaged to him and to retain that possession until redeemed by the "person competent to do so. A way-farer cannot offer the mortgage money and seek redemption from a mortgagee". The lower appellate court should have decided the competency of the plaintiff in O.S. 548 of 17. Evidence had been adduced by the respondent to show that the executant was competent to give the Melotti but this was not considered in view of the position taken by the lower appellate court. It has therefore become necessary to remand the case to the lower appellate court for a proper disposal. 5. In the result I allow the second appeal, set aside the decree appealed from and remand the case to the appellate court for decision afresh according to law. The Court fee paid in this court will be refunded to the appellant and the rest of the costs will abide the result of the appeal and will be provided for in the decree of the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court will dispose of the appeal within one month of receipt of records. Allowed.