Judgment :- 1. The sole question is whether the present suit for redemption instituted by the appellants was rightly held by the courts below to be barred by res judicata by reason of a decree in O. S. No. 285 of 1968. 2. The earlier suit was instituted by the present first plaintiff against the present defendant for redemption of the very same mortgage that is sought to be redeemed in the present suit. The earlier suit was dismissed on the ground that what was sought to be redeemed then was not redeemable by reason of the statutory conversion of what was once a mortgage into a deemed tenancy in terms of S.4A (1) (a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 thereby conferring fixity of tenure upon the deemed tenant. In other words, the earlier suit was dismissed with a declaration that the properly was not redeemable by reason of the operation of an intervening statute. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits that, in a mortgage suit, an earlier decree made otherwise than in terms of Form 7D of Appendix D of the C. P. C. does not operate as res judicata so as to bar the subsequent suit. He relies upon the proviso to S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which reads: "Right of mortgagor to redeem Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a Court" Counsel contends that the decree in the earlier suit extinguishing the right of redemption was not made in accordance with the relevant form prescribed under Appendix D of the C. P. C. It was, therefore, not a decree which could operate as res judicata. He relies on Raghunath Singh v. Mt. Hansraj, A. I. R.1934 P. C. 205; Subba Rao v. Raju, A. I. R.1950 Federal Court 1; Narayana Shenoi v. Yesodabai, 1954 K..L.T. 530 (F. B.) and other decisions in support of his argument. That argument would indeed be correct if the right of redemption had been extinguished by a decree. 4. The proviso to S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act says that the right may be extinguished by an act of the parties or by a decree. That argument would indeed be correct if the right of redemption had been extinguished by a decree. 4. The proviso to S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act says that the right may be extinguished by an act of the parties or by a decree. If the right is alleged to have been extinguished by a decree, that must be a decree which has been drafted strictly in compliance with the prescribed form. If the right has not been so extinguished, a subsequent suit for redemption, instituted within the period of limitation, is not barred by reason of res judicata. As in a partition suit, so in a suit for redemption, the cause of action is a recurring one. It is distinct and different in each successive action, until the right of redemption is extinguished or the suit for redemption is time-barred. On the other hand, where the right has been extinguished otherwise than by a decree, the principle referred to in the decisions cited above can have no application. 5. In the present case, the right of redemption was extinguished not by a decree, but by the operation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The decree in the earlier suit was only a declaration to that effect. That decree was not an act of extinguishment, but a declaration as to extinguishment by an intervening statute. That decree has become final and operates as res judicata. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The patties will bear their respective costs. Issue carbon copies of this judgment to the parties on the usual terms.