Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Respondent No. 1 is the legal representative of defendant No. 1.

6. The cross-appeal presented by defendant No. 2 is with reference to mortgaged properties situate in Kolhapur district and is based upon the allegation that the Satara Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with regard to the said properties in Kolhapur, which lie outside British India.

7. The appeal is against a decree dated February 12, 1924, of the High Court of Bombay, in Appeal No. 146 of 1919, which varied a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Satara dated July 21,1919.

8. The cross-appeal, is against the said decree of the High Court and another decree of the said High Court of the same date, in Appeal 169 of 1920, whereby the appeal of defendant No. 2 was dismissed with costs.

9. The properties, in respect of which relief is now sought by the plaintiffs, are situated in Satara, Belgaum and Kolhapur.

10. Satara and Belgaum are, and Kolhapur is not, within British India.

11. It will be convenient to deal first with the question relating to the properties in the Kolhapur district and the cross-appeal,

53. Consequently, the rights of the plaintiffs under the mortgages being still in existence, and the monies being due, the plaintiffs, subject to the question of limitation, are entitled to an order for sale of the mortgaged properties situate in Satara and Belgaum.

54. The question remains whether the plaintiffs' suit is out of time.

55. It was argued on behalf of the defendants that the cause of action arose in 1859 or 1860, when the plaintiffs' predecessor ceased to be in possession of the mortgaged properties in Satara and Belgaum: that the Indian Limitation Act No. XIV of 1859 was then in force and that by reason of Section 1 (16) the suit was out of time, inasmuch as it should have been brought within the period of six years from the time the cause of action arose.

61. Consequently they are of opinion that the suit was not barred by limitation.

62. The appeal of the plaintiffs, therefore, must be allowed so far as the mortgaged properties in Satara and Belgaum are concerned.

63. The decree of the High Court in Appeal No. 146 of 1919, and dated February 12, 1924, should be set aside and a decree made in the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants for the sum of Us. 3,311822-0-8 and interest thereon at the rate of twelve annas per cent, per mensem from the date of suit until realisation, and for the balance of costs, if any, hereinafter mentioned, with a direction that the said sums are to be paid within six months of the date on which the order of His Majesty in Council is received by the Court of the Subordinate Judge and that in default the plaintiffs will be entitled to bring to sale the mortgaged properties situate in Satara and Belgaum.