Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.27 seconds)Article 148 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 60 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Muthaya Shetti vs Kanthappa Shetti on 17 December, 1917
13. Looking at the principle of the thing also, it is difficult to discover any reason why the transferees from the mortgagees should be entitled to protection under Article 134 and not transferees from the representatives of the mortgagee. Indeed the need for protection is greater in the latter than in the former class of cases. Persons who take a transfer from the original mortgagee have the means of knowing and may be presumed to know that the transferor possesses only a mortgage interest in the property. But as time elapses, knowledge of the original mortgage would have faded and purchasers are likely to be misled by long possession and might purchase the property in the belief that the representative of the mortgagee was the full owner. That this is a serious possibility will be clear when it is remembered that the period provided for redemption is the longest prescribed for any suit in the Limitation Act. It is 60 years. As observed by Seshagiri Aiyar J. in -- 'Muthaya Shetti v. Kanthappa Shetti', AIR 1919 Mad 1097 (P), Article 134 is really a branch of the law of prescription and the reason for giving the protection of the statute of repose is weightier in the case of the transferees from representatives of the mortgagee than in the case of transferees from the original mortgagee.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 140 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhaiya Raghunath Singh vs Musammat Hansraj Kunwar on 19 July, 1934
In -- 'Raghunath Singh v. Hansraj Kunwar', AIR 1934 PC 205 (A) it was held that the decree of court contemplated in this section is the final decree in a mortgage action foreclosing the mortgagor of his right to redeem.