M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for redemption of suit schedule property which had been mortgaged to Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 was alleged to be the vendee of the mortgage property having purchased the same under a sale deed executed by the mortgagee - Defendant No. 1. The suit was one for redemption. Second defendant pleaded that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice; that the suit was barred by time in view of Article 61 (b) of the Limitation act, 1963; that he was entitled to, in the event of a decree of redemption being granted to the cost of improvements to the property effected by him. ( 3 ) ON such primary pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as 7 issues. They are- (1) Whether the plaintiff proves the mortgage dated 24-10-1953 in favour of defendant No. 1? (2) Is the time fixed under the mortgage deed a dog on the equity of redemption ? (3) Whether Defendant No. 2 is a bonafide purchaser without knowledge of the mortgage ? (4) IF so, whether the sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 2 executed by Defendant No. 1 binding on the plaintiff ? (5) Whether Defendant No. 2 proves the improvements made on the suit property? (6) Whether the suit is batred by time ? (7) Whether plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage ?the trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff on all the issues and against the defendants. Defendant No. 2 filed an appeal before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, bangalore, in R. A. No. 26 of 1987 against the Judgment and decree of the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the present appeal under section 100 of CPC. ( 4 ) SRI B. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the First Defendant - appellant submitted the same 3 propositions which he canvassed before the Courts below. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the present appeal under section 100 of CPC. ( 4 ) SRI B. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the First Defendant - appellant submitted the same 3 propositions which he canvassed before the Courts below. Firstly that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice and therefore plaintiff could not have any cause of action against him and he had lost his right of redemption in regard to the property; secondly that in any event, the suit was barred by time as it was not filed within 12 years from the date of sale of mortgagee's interest in the suit schedule property; thirdly that he was entitled to cost of improvements he had made. ( 5 ) IF the plaintiffs right of redemption was recognised, the 3 points need not detain me long. Mortgagoe by executing the sale deed of the mortgage property thereby conferred no better title than what he had under the deed of mortgage; that the suit mortgage which was in evidence was proved by the plaintiffs cannot be disputed nor can I disturb the finding recorded by the Courts below on that question. If by deed of sale what was conveyed to the present appellant by the First Defendant was no more than the right of a mortgagee, then he should have taken steps against the First Defendant and no more. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court and the Appellate Court is correct. ( 6 ) THE second contention in regard to the bar by limitation has no substance because that article is attracted only when there is a sale of the mortgage property by the mortgagee with notice to the mortgagor. Column No. 3 of Item no. 64 (B) in the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides for 12 years from the date of knowledge of sale. It has been established by evidence, firstly that there was no notice of the sale to the mortgagor, secondly that mortgagors came to know of the sale only in the year 1982. Therefore, the suit was filed well within 12 years as prescribed. It has been established by evidence, firstly that there was no notice of the sale to the mortgagor, secondly that mortgagors came to know of the sale only in the year 1982. Therefore, the suit was filed well within 12 years as prescribed. ( 7 ) THE last submission made should not detain me long because improvements effected were not necessitated by any need for protecting the security of the mortgage and as such the mortgagee was not entitled to such expenditure on the immovable property of the mortgagor. In any event the time fixed under the mortgage deed itself for redemption has been consistently held by the Courts acts as a clog on the right of equity of redemption. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, on all counts, the appellant must fail. Second appeal has no merit. It is dismissed. --- *** --- .