9911796707
TMI Blog1921 (8) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers urged that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 20, Sub-section (2) of the Indian Limitation Act. The Courts below have overruled this contention and dismissed the application. 2. The case for the mortgagees decree holders is that in 1912 the mortgagor agreed to transfer the equity of redemption to them in satisfaction of their dues under the mortgage decree, that in pursuance of this agreement they entered into possession of the mortgaged properties and that since then they have held possession, though the mortgagor did not carry out his agreement by execution and registration of the proper deeds. On the other hand, on the 1st April 1-917 the mortgagor transferred the property to the fifth defendant, who dispossessed the plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the land may be deemed a payment for the purpose of Sub-section (1). In the second place, where a mortgagee has obtained possession under an invalid agreement for sale his position may be deemed to be that of a mortgagee, when it is established that the agreement was inoperative in law, and he may be called upon to account for the rents and profits as if he were the mortgagee in possession. In support of this proposition reference may be made to the decision of Stuart. V.C., in Robertson v. Norris (1858) 1 Giff. 421 : 114 R.R. 486 : 4 Jur. (N.S.) 155 : 65 E.R. 983; see also Bishop v. Sharp (1704) 2 Vern. 469 : 23 E.R. 902. This does not militate against the proposition that, as in Blennerhassett v. Day (1811) 2 Ball & B. 104 : 53 R.R. 79 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If he maintains that there was a valid contract for sale of the equity of redemption and that the title of the plaintiff thereunder was unimpeachable, on the principle that equity regards that as done which should have been done [Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch. D. 9 : 52 L.J. Ch. 2 : 46 L.T. 858 : 31 W.R. 109, Maddison v. Alderton (1883) 8 App. Cas. 467 : 52 L.J.Q.B. 737 : 49 L.T. 303 : 31 W.R. 820 : 47 J.P. 821, Syam Kishore v. Umeth Chandra 55 Ind. Cas. 154 : 31 C.L.J. 75 : 24 C.W.N. 463] he has clearly acquired no valid title to the property by his purchase on the 1st April 1917, because, on this assumption, his vendor had no subsisting interest on that date to transfer. On the other hand, if he maintains that the contract for sale was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
