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

1956 Supreme(Mad) 235

KRISHNASWAMI NAYUDU
M. Subramaniam Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Muthiah Pillai – Respondent


Advocates:
T. R. Ramachandran for Appellants.
V. Seshadri and K. S. Ramamurthi, for Respondent.

Judgment

The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether there is a period of limitation for an application by the mortgagor-plaintiff in a redemption suit to pass a final decree and whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies to such an application.

A preliminary decree for redemption was passed on the 21st June, 1936, granting two months’ time for payment of the amount. The plaintiff paid the amount within the time fixed but did not make an application for passing a final decree directing the mortgagee to deliver the documents and possession of the property He filed two execution petitions, E. P. Nos. 252 and 253 of 1949 in the Chief Court of Pudukottai but they were dismissed as being barred by limitation. This appeal arises out of the application filed by the plaintiff on the 2nd November, 1951, for passing a final decree. A plea of limitation was taken as the application was filed long after the expiry of three years and it was contended that Article 181 of the Limitation Act would apply to this case. The Courts below, relying on a decision of Somayya,J., reported in Angammal v. Muhammad Sulaiman Lebbai1, took the view that there is no period of limita




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