SPENCER
Ramakrishna Kukkilaya – Appellant
Versus
Nekker Kuppanna Alias – Respondent
Spencer, J.
1. This suit was brought for the purpose of redeeming a usufructuary mortgage of the year 1867. The mortgagor remained in possession under a lease until 1882 when the mortgagee got into possession. The mortgagees representatives pleaded in defence of this suit that the plaintiffs were bound to pay off two simple motgages of the years 1873 and 1877 and a decree of 1882 before they could be allowed to redeem the prior usufructuary mortgage. On the points of law arising out of this contention the District Judge, disagreeing with the opinion of the District Munsif, has decided in the defendants favour.
2. Now it is clear that by the Limitation Act in force at the institution of this suit if the mortgagees had sued at that time to recover what was due to them on the footing of those simple mortgages their suit would have been time-barred, whereas if the mortgagors sued to redeem them, their suit would not be out of time.
3. The question then is whether the defendants can set them up in bar of the plaintiffs right of redemption. So far as this presidency is concerned, it must be taken as settled law that a mortgagee having more than one mortgage on the same property can
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.