9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Mauza Bahaldih was mortgaged under the two mortgage deeds. 2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by the law of limitation. 3. The effect of part payments made by the mortgagor on the limitation period. 4. Whether dispossession of the mortgagee provided a fresh cause of action for enforcement of the mortgage. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether Mauza Bahaldih was mortgaged under the two mortgage deeds: The mortgagor had transferred his interest in Mauzas Bansjora and Simitanr shortly after executing the two mortgage deeds. The court examined the terms of the mortgage deeds and found that the mortgagor had agreed that the mortgagee could recover the amount due by selling his interest in Mauza Bahaldih. The court concluded that the intention was to encumber Mauzas Bansjora, Simitanr, and Bahaldih. Therefore, the High Court erred in holding that only the mortgagor's interest in Mauzas Bansjora and Simitanr was mortgaged. 2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by the law of limitation: The suit was filed more than twelve years after the mortgage amount became payable, making it prima facie barred by the law of limitation. However, the plaintiff sought to extend the limitation period based on part payments made by the mortgagor. The court found that the mortgagor's interest in Mauza Bahaldih was mortgaged and subsisted at the time of part payments, making the suit to enforce the mortgage dated August 27, 1922, within the limitation period. 3. The effect of part payments made by the mortgagor on the limitation period: The mortgagor made part payments on August 16, 1934, and April 1, 1937. The court held that part payments could extend the limitation period if the mortgagor remained the owner of the mortgaged property at the time of payment. Since the mortgagor had lost his interest in Mauzas Bansjora and Simitanr before these payments, part payments could only extend the limitation period if Mauza Bahaldih was mortgaged. The court concluded that the mortgagor's interest in Mauza Bahaldih was mortgaged and subsisted at the time of part payments, thus extending the limitation period for the mortgage dated August 27, 1922. However, for the mortgage dated June 14, 1922, the mortgagor had lost interest in all mortgaged properties before the part payment on April 1, 1937, making the suit barred by limitation. 4. Whether dispossession of the mortgagee provided a fresh cause of action for enforcement of the mortgage: The plaintiff argued that dispossession of the mortgagee provided a fresh cause of action under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court held that Section 68 conferred a right to sue for mortgage money in specific cases but did not extend the limitation period for filing a suit to enforce the mortgage. Dispossession was not a ground for extending the limitation period under the Limitation Act. Even if the sale constituted deprivation of security or disturbance of possession, the suit filed in 1946 was barred by limitation. Conclusion: The appeal was partially allowed. The decree passed by the High Court was set aside, and a decree was granted in favor of the plaintiff for the mortgage dated August 27, 1922. The plaintiff's appeal failed concerning the mortgage dated June 14, 1922. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the fourth defendant, who defended the appeal, and was entitled to costs from the original mortgagor's heirs and transferees of the property subject to the mortgage dated August 27, 1922.
|
