Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Smt. Sayar Bai vs Smt. Yashoda Bai And Ors. on 15 December, 1982 cites

Natesa Thevar vs Narayanaswami Padayachi And Ors. on 28 February, 1952

7. The next argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that Damodar and Rameshchandra had sold the entire property to Hiralal and thus Hiralal was possessed of all the rights in the disputed property and not only the mortgagee rights but also the mortgator's rights vested in him and that as the mortgagor Shri Kishan was well aware of the sale made by Damodar and Rameshchandra in favour of Hiralal, the latter became full owner of the entire property by adverse possession. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Natesa Thevar v. Narayanswami Padayachi, AIR 1952 Mad 844, in support of the aforesaid contention. It was held in that case that the sale of both the mortgagee's and mortgagor's interest, in execution of the decree against the mortgagee and the dispossession of the mortgagee from the mortgaged properties in consequence thereof could be adverse to the mortgagor also, if the mortgagor has knowledge of the hostile acts or of adverse possession. It was observed by their Lordships that Article 144 of the Limitation Act was applicable to cases where the mortgaged properties were sold as absolute properties of the mortgagee, without any limitation on the interests thus sold and subsequently the vendee enjoyed the properties in his own right and to the knowledge of the mor-gagor, beyond the prescribed period. It was argued by the learned counsel that Hiralal had filed an application for making constructions before the Municipal Council, Udaipur on the basis of the sale effected in his favour and in those proceedings Sri Kishan filed objections on the ground that the properly belonged to him and not to Hiralal. It was argued by learned counsel that from the proceedings before the Administrator, Municipal Council, it was clear that Sri Kishan was aware of the sale of the property in dispute in his favour. In the first place, the order of the Additional Collector, Udaipur, as Administrator of the Municipal Council, dated June 22, 1970 (Ex. 2) does not show that Hiralal had claimed his rights in the property in dispute on the basis of sale of the entire property in his favour by Damodar and Rameschandra. It cannot be lost sight of the Hiralal was a transferee from Damodar and Ramesh Chandra, who were grandsons of Chhaganlal and Hiralal could be in possession of the property in dispute as a transferee of the mortgagee rights. Moreover, the suit for redemption was already pending since 1941 and adverse possession of Hiralal, if any, could have only begun after the sale of the entire property in dispute in his favour came to the notice of Sri Kishan. As Sri Kishan's suit for redemption of mortgage was already pending at the time when Hiralal purchased the property in dispute from Damodar and Ramesh Chandra, there was no question of Hiralal acquiring any rights in the said property against Sri Kishan by adverse possession.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1