Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.73 seconds)
Marimittath Theruvil Moothachettiam ... vs Kuitiyil Machikandy Chekkara Chappan ... on 10 November, 1936 cites

Hillaya Subbaya Hegde vs Narayanappa Timmaya on 12 September, 1911

In Hillaya Subbaya v. Narayanappa Timmaya 36 B 185 : 12 Ind. Cas. 913 : 13 Bom. LR 1200, a revarsioner, to support, his title to the property mortgaged by a widow and sister of the last male holder got into possession from the successors-in-interest to the mortgagee. It was held that even though he set up a paramount title to the property, yet since he had got into possession through the mortgagee, he could not be allowed to claim toe property adversely to the mortgagor.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Tarubai And Ors. vs Venkatrao And Ors. on 12 September, 1902

It was held that from 1908 the trespasser was holding adversely not merely to the mortgagee, who had a right to possession, but to the mortgagor also, because he was ousting the mortgagor by erecting the buildings on the property, which only the mortgagor had a right to do. A passage from the judgment of Batty, J., in Tarubai v. Venkatrao 27 B 43, at p. 68, was approved as setting out the law on the question as to how far possession by a trespasser could be held to be adverse to the mortgagor when the mortgagor had no right to possession. It is No doubt as long as the mortgagee is in possession, he and all those claiming under him represent the mortgagor's possession. If the mortgagee in possession is dispossessed on grounds affecting only his right, as, for instance, his right as heir to represent the original mortgagee, or his right to possession in spite of a third party's lien on the property, then the dispossession of the mortgagee obviously does not imperil or call in question any right of the mortgagor, and the mortgagor is not concerned or entitled to insist on being immediately restored to possession; and the possession taken is not adverse to him and cannot cause time to run against him. To give the mortgagor a right to insist on immediate possession, there must be an unequivocal ouster preventing the possession of the mortgagor from continuing altogether, by leaving no room for doubt that the person taking possession does not profess to represent the mortgagor, but to hold in spite of him. In such a case the mortgagor is as effectually and unmistakeably displaced as if there had been no mortgagor at all. When an ouster takes place in that manner the mortgagor knows that no one is in possession who can represent or continue his possession, or who is entitled preferentially to possession, and, therefore, he becomes entitled (and it is necessary and his duty, if he does not want his right to be barred) to possession immediately.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1