Subbarayalu Naidu Vs. Papammal and ors. - Court Judgment
|Judge||Ayling and ;Tyabji, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1916Mad887(1); 29Ind.Cas.579|
|Respondent||Papammal and ors.|
|Cases Referred|| and Venkatachela Pillai v. Ranga Pillai|
.....the borrower whose mortgage has invoked section 69 of the transfer of property act, is to file a civil suit and in such suit the court has power to grant injunction and to impose condition for the grant thereof--section 17; [a.p. shah c.j., f.m. ibrahim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] proceedings under section 17 power of the tribunal to pass any interim order held, once the possession of the secured asset is taken, there would be no occasion for the tribunal to order redelivery of possession till final determination of the issue. in other words, it is only when the tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures, referred to in section 13 (4) taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder, then only the.....1. there is no doubt that article 44 of the limitation act is the article properly applicable: and that the suit is time barred as regards all the suit properties. its dismissal as against the defendants who did not appeal and were not impleaded in the lower appellate court is justified by order xli, rule 33, of the code of civil procedure vide peria krishnasami naik v. aiyappa naik 24 ind. cas. 924 : 1 l.w. 376 and venkatachela pillai v. ranga pillai 28 ind. cas. 694 : 17 m.l.t. 220 : 28 m.l.j. 334.2. the second appeal is dismissed with costs (one set).
1. There is no doubt that Article 44 of the Limitation Act is the Article properly applicable: and that the suit is time barred as regards all the suit properties. Its dismissal as against the defendants who did not appeal and were not impleaded in the lower Appellate Court is justified by Order XLI, Rule 33, of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Peria Krishnasami Naik v. Aiyappa Naik 24 Ind. Cas. 924 : 1 L.W. 376 and Venkatachela Pillai v. Ranga Pillai 28 Ind. Cas. 694 : 17 M.L.T. 220 : 28 M.L.J. 334.
2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs (one set).