SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1629

D.P.MOHAPATRA, M.B.SHAH
Ahilyabai – Appellant
Versus
Shantabai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

D.P.MOHAPATRA, J.

(1) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 26/3/1985 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in regular Second Appeal No. 932 of 1984 confirming the decree passed by the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur, in Original Suit No. 331 of 1981. All the courts below dismissed the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that it was barred by the period of limitation.

(2) FOR deciding the contention whether the suit was barred by limitation, we would first refer to a few admitted facts. It is the contention of the parties that the original mortgagor, Dhondiba Subarao Mahindrakar was the owner of the suit property situated at Bijapur city, Bijapur. He executed a mortgage deed on 10/7/1933 in favour of his brother Hanamanth Subarao Mahindrakar for a sum of Rs. 2,500.00. As recorded by the High Court, the mortgaged amount was to be repaid within five years and the mORTGAGEE was to enjoy the property free of rent; that in case the mortgaged amount was not paid, the mORTGAGEE would continue in possession on the same terms till the amount came to be paid; in case the mORTGAGEE needed the amount and demanded the same




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top