1920 (1) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y mortgaged in 1902. It appears that the plaintiff filed Suit No. 220 of 1905 to redeem the mortgage, but not wishing to proceed with that suit he was allowed to withdraw it with permission to bring a fresh suit provided that such suit was brought within two years and that the cost of defendants in that suit were first paid. This suit was brought eight years after the withdrawal, and the plaintiff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich he can redeem the mortgage. The mere fact that he files a suit to redeem and then either abandons or withdraws it will not deprive him of his right to redeem. It is only when there has been a decision that there was no mortgage at all that it necessarily follows that the right to redeem falls to the ground. The result, therefore, of the decision of both Courts in this ease would be that althou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h leave to bring another, provided he brought that other within two years. He has now brought another suit for redemption; but he has not done so within two years; he has indeed allowed eight years to elapse. Apart from any other matter whatever, having regard to section 374 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 which lays down that the law of limitation is not affected when leave is given, I should .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X