Skip to content


SaiduddIn Khan and ors. Vs. Lala Ratan Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Property
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.123
AppellantSaiduddIn Khan and ors.
RespondentLala Ratan Lal
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, articles 134, 148 - mortgage--redemption--purchaser--auction sale--absolute ownership--adverse possession against the mortgagor--limitation. - - the learned counsel, for the appellants admits that but for this sale they would be in no better position than the mortgagee from ghulam mustafa and the suit would not have been barred by limitation......appeal is the following: the predecessors-in-title-of the defendants claimed through one, ghulam nabi. ghulam nabi was one of the heirs of ghulam mustafa. ghulam mustafa had made a usufructuary mortgage in 1850. ghulam nabi without the other heirs redeemed the entire mortgage. for many years the predecessors-in-title of the defendants were in possession under the redemption of ghulam nabi. some time about the year 1891, the predecessor-in-title of the defendant purchased at auction sale the property now in dispute. the auction bale was held in pursuance of a mortgage decree under the transfer of property act and the property put up for sale was the property now in dispute. the learned counsel, for the appellants admits that but for this sale they would be in no better position than the.....
Judgment:

1. The only question in this Letters Patent appeal is the following: The predecessors-in-title-of the defendants claimed through one, Ghulam Nabi. Ghulam Nabi was one of the heirs of Ghulam Mustafa. Ghulam Mustafa had made a usufructuary mortgage in 1850. Ghulam Nabi without the other heirs redeemed the entire mortgage. For many years the predecessors-in-title of the defendants were in possession under the redemption of Ghulam Nabi. Some time about the year 1891, the predecessor-in-title of the defendant purchased at auction sale the property now in dispute. The auction Bale was held in pursuance of a mortgage decree Under the Transfer of Property Act and the property put up for sale was the property now in dispute. The learned Counsel, for the appellants admits that but for this sale they would be in no better position than the mortgagee from Ghulam Mustafa and the suit would not have been barred by limitation. But it is contended that when the defendants or their predecessors-in-title purchased the property in 1891 and got formal possession, their title from that time must be referred to the auction purchase and not to their original title through Ghulam Nabi. We think that the view taken by our learned brother was correct and the defendant's title must be referred to the original, possession and not to the purchase in 1894. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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