Sambadiva Ayyar vs Subramania Pillai And Ors. on 9 May, 1935
There it was held that the mortgagee purchaser is execution of a mortgage decree to which purchaser of equity of redemption was not a party has two causes of action against such purchaser. One as a mortgagee and the other purchaser in court auction of the hypotheca. If he sues for sale as mortgagee time will run from the date the amount fell due under the mortgage. If he brings a suits as a purchaser for possession time begins to run from the date of his purchase, provided 'he had no knowledge of the sale of equity of redemption by the date of the previous suit. Otherwise the time shall run from the date of sale by the mortgagor or perhaps the date the mortgage amount was due, whichever is later. That case in fact was decided on the basis that the mortgagee had no knowledge of the purchase. Both the Courts below have therefore held that the instant case is distinguishable on facts in that the plaintiff herein had full knowledge of the alienation even before he brought the suit on mortgage and that the ratio decidendi in that case is therefore of on application to the facts of the present case.