Skip to content


Lalji Mal Vs. Sheo Charan Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR18All371
AppellantLalji Mal
RespondentSheo Charan Singh
Excerpt:
act no. iv of 1882 (transfer of property act), section 90 - application for decree against non-hypothecated property--limitation--terminus a quo. - - it also contained a covenant for the payment of the money due on the expiration of the term, and a proviso that the mortgagee might bring the mortgaged property to sale if the mortgagor failed to deliver possession......six years' limitation began to run from the breach of the agreement to put him in possession. the suit was brought after the expiration of six years from that breach and within six years of the determination of the term of the mortgage on which the mortgagor's covenant to pay depended. we need say nothing as to whether the decree for sale might not have been opposed on the ground that the suit was not brought within six years of the breach of the covenant to put the plaintiff in possession. the remedy under section 90 was a distinct remedy from any suit under section 68 of the transfer of property act, and, as the suit in which the remedy was sought and obtained was brought within six years of the breach of the covenant to pay, the amount sought to be recovered by the decree under.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.

1. This is an appeal from an order in execution of a decree. The defendant had granted to the plaintiff a mortgage. It was usufructuary. It also contained a covenant for the payment of the money due on the expiration of the term, and a proviso that the mortgagee might bring the mortgaged property to sale if the mortgagor failed to deliver possession. Possession was not delivered. The mortgagee obtained a decree for sale. The sale of the property did not satisfy the amount decreed, and he sought for and obtained a decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. From that decree this appeal has been brought. It is contended that the mortgagee's remedy under Section 90 was barred by limitation, the contention being that the six years' limitation began to run from the breach of the agreement to put him in possession. The suit was brought after the expiration of six years from that breach and within six years of the determination of the term of the mortgage on which the mortgagor's covenant to pay depended. We need say nothing as to whether the decree for sale might not have been opposed on the ground that the suit was not brought within six years of the breach of the covenant to put the plaintiff in possession. The remedy under Section 90 was a distinct remedy from any suit under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act, and, as the suit in which the remedy was sought and obtained was brought within six years of the breach of the covenant to pay, the amount sought to be recovered by the decree under Section 90 was legally recoverable. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //