Narain Ram Kalwar vs Ram Lalla Prasad And Ors. on 17 August, 1950
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in Krishnaswami Ayyar v. Sabarathnam Chetti, A. I. R. (25) 1938 Mad. 394; (180 I. C. 468). The facts of that case were quite different. A certain property was usufructuarily mortgaged on 19-9-1890. The period fixed for the payment of the mortgage money was upto 11-4-1901. Prior to 11-4-1901, the mortgagee died and his heirs transferred the property first by simple mortgage and then by a usufructuary mortgage dated 4-11-1900, dated 17-10-1899; but as the property was in possession of a Receiver the mortgagee under the mortgage of 4-11-1900 could not get possession and, therefore, the mortgagee entered into agreement that interest shall be paid at a certain rate to the mortgagee. Then a suit for redemption and possession was filed in 1928 and the Court had to consider whether Art. 134 as it stood before its amendment by Act I [1] of 1929 barred the suit.