The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Limitation Act, specifically Art.109, in the context of a mortgage dispute and the recovery of mesne profits.

Headnote:
mortgage - recovery of profits - Limitation Act, Art.109
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the recovery of profits of mortgaged property. The plaintiff sought recovery of profits for a specific period, while the defendant denied liability, claiming possession was not wrongful and that the suit was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover mesne profits. The court also addressed the issue of possession and the quantum of mesne profits claimed.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the Limitation Act, the wrongful possession of the defendant, and the quantum of mesne profits claimed by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation under Art.109 of the Limitation Act. It also determined that the defendant's possession became wrongful on the date of notice of deposit of the mortgage money, and that the burden of proving the quantum of mesne profits was on the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court modified the decree of the lower court and awarded the plaintiff a decree for recovery of profits and interest at a specified rate.

Judgment :-

1. The appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the profits of mortgaged property. Nallaperumal Pillai Lekshmanaperumal Pillai executed a usufructuary mortgage in respect of the plaint properties to the defendant. The latter sued in O.S. No.73 of 1112 alleging that he had not been given possession of the mortgaged properties. A decree for recovery of the mortgage amount and loss of profits charged on the properties, as well as recovery of possession of the properties were sought for in that suit. The suit ended in a compromise decree under which the mortgagor acknowledged receipt of the mortgage amount as well as his liability to account for profits. The mortgagor was allowed to retain possession of the properties on payment of Rs. 300 per annum as rent. The decree further provided that the mortgagor was to pay the mortgage amount also in two instalments and that in case of default of payment on the due dates, the defendant was to recover possession of the properties. The defendant also undertook to surrender possession of receipt of the whole amount due to him as mortgage money and rent. Ext. II is copy of the decree. The mortgagor failed to pay the amounts on the due dates and the defendant recovered possession of the properties on 5.6.1115. After the death of Lekshmanaperumal Pillai, the plaintiff in this suit purchased the properties from one of his widows and on 26.1.1118 he deposited in the execution court, the mortgage money and the other amounts payable under the decree. He also applied for recovery of possession of the properties. The defendant accepted notice on 2.2.1118 and on 3.2.1118 he applied for time to file objections. An order for delivery of possession was passed on 8.2.1118. The defendant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Travancore as A.S. No. 123 of 1118 and obtained an order staying execution proceedings on the same day. The appeal was disposed of by the High Court on 24.2.1118 setting aside the order for delivery and remanding the matter for fresh decision. On 4.6.1119 the execution court again passed and order for delivery of possession. The defendant took up the matter again in appeal as A.S. No. 361 of 1119 and obtained another order of stay of proceedings on 7.6.1119. That appeal was also dismissed and the records were received in the execution court on 17.7.1119. Thereafter the plaintiff obtained delivery of possession on 26.7.1119. This suit was instituted for recovery of profits of the property for the period from 25.1.1118 to 26.7.1119. The plaintiff claimed a sum of 25662 Fs. Ch.1 and cash 10 as profits inclusive of interest. A statement showing the income of each property was also appended to the plaint. The defendant denied liability for the amount claimed. According to him, his possession was never wrongful. It was contended that he remained in possession on the strength of orders of stay issued by the High Court and that his possession during the period could not therefore be deemed wrongful. The question of mesne profits claimed was also denied. The defendant's case was that profits of the properties would not exceed Rs. 300 per annum. At the time of final hearing he raised a contention that the suit was barred by limitation under Art.109 of the Limitation Act. All the defence contentions were overruled and the plaintiff was given a decree as prayed for. The defendant has therefore preferred this appeal.

2. Three points were raised on behalf of the appellant. The first was that the suit was barred by limitation under Art.109 of the Indian Limitation Act. It has to be stated that the defendant did not raise this point in his written statement. However he was allowed to raise the same at the time of final hearing. The court below held that the suit was governed by Art.105 and not Art.109 of the Limitation Act. In this view, it was held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the same was brought within three years of the date on which the plaintiff obtained posses

Click Here to Read the rest of this document