Skip to content


Sangamma Naicker Vs. Ramasawmy Naicker - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.478
AppellantSangamma Naicker
RespondentRamasawmy Naicker
Cases Referred and Masilamania Pillai v. Thiruvengadam Pillai
Excerpt:
.....(act xiv of 1882), section 13 - suit to (sic) a mortgage not binding on plaintiff and for posses (sic) mortgaged property--decree that mortgage was (sic) on plaintiff to the extent of a certain amount--(sic) of suit on plaintiff's failure to deposit said (sic) subsequent suit for redemption--adverse posse (sic) res judicata. - - with regard to the question of limitation, the ground of his decision, so far as i understand it, was that, inasmuch as in the earlier suit of 1901 the plaintiff set up a case that the mortgage was bad, the defendant was able to prescribe for title by adverse possession from the date of mortgage, that is, the 22nd june 1892, to the extent of the mortgage interest. 2. then, as regards the other point which was argued before us, namely, section 13 of the civil..........of limitation, the ground of his decision, so far as i understand it, was that, inasmuch as in the earlier suit of 1901 the plaintiff set up a case that the mortgage was bad, the defendant was able to prescribe for title by adverse possession from the date of mortgage, that is, the 22nd june 1892, to the extent of the mortgage interest. 2. then, as regards the other point which was argued before us, namely, section 13 of the civil procedure code of 1882 operating as a bar to this suit by reason of the earlier suit of 1901 having been brought, in which the plaintiff set up the case of the mortgage being bad, the question is settled, so far, at any rate as this presidency is concerned, by long series of authorities. i may refer to the cases of ramasawmy iyer v. vythinatha iyer 26 m.k 760,.....
Judgment:

Arnold White, C.J.

1. In this case I think the Subordinate Judge was wrong in his conclusion. With regard to the question of limitation, the ground of his decision, so far as I understand it, was that, inasmuch as in the earlier suit of 1901 the plaintiff set up a case that the mortgage was bad, the defendant was able to prescribe for title by adverse possession from the date of mortgage, that is, the 22nd June 1892, to the extent of the mortgage interest.

2. Then, as regards the other point which was argued before us, namely, Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 operating as a bar to this suit by reason of the earlier suit of 1901 having been brought, in which the plaintiff set up the case of the mortgage being bad, the question is settled, so far, at any rate as this Presidency is concerned, by long series of authorities. I may refer to the cases of Ramasawmy Iyer v. Vythinatha Iyer 26 M.k 760, Veerana Pillai v. Muthukumara Asary 27 M.k 102, Parangadan Nair v. Peruntoduka Illat Chata 27 M.k 380, Paranbath Manakkal v. Puthengattil Moosamne 28 M.k 406, Thirukaikat Madathil Raman v. Thiruthiyil Krishana Nair 29 M. k 153 and Masilamania Pillai v. Thiruvengadam Pillai 31 M.k 385. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the case to the District Munsif for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event.

Krishnaswamy Iyer, J.

3. I entirely concur.


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