Concurrent findings and limitation barred redemption claim against transferees from the mortgagee.

Concurrent findings that the respondents' predecessors were not proved to be heirs of the original mortgagor could not be disturbed in second appeal absent a genuine question of law, so the High Court erred in reappreciating evidence and the right to redeem was not established. The suit for redemption and recovery of possession was also barred by limitation against transferees from the mortgagee because the plaintiff had to plead and prove filing within time from the date of knowledge of the transfers, and no such pleading or proof was made. The decree was therefore unsustainable and the suit failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact on the question whether the respondents' predecessors were heirs of the original mortgagor and had title to seek redemption; (ii) Whether the suit for redemption and recovery of possession was barred by limitation in respect of transfers made by the mortgagee or by persons claiming under him.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact on the question whether the respondents' predecessors were heirs of the original mortgagor and had title to seek redemption.

Analysis: The question whether the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff were related to the original mortgagor was purely one of fact. Both courts below had concurrently held that the relationship was not proved. The documentary material relied upon consisted of statements made by interested persons in earlier documents, while the persons who could have proved the relationship directly were available but did not enter the witness box. In second appeal, interference with such concurrent findings was impermissible in the absence of a real question of law. The High Court therefore erred in reappreciating evidence and displacing findings that were fully supported by the record.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent factual findings. The respondents had not established title or the right to redeem, and this issue was answered against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for redemption and recovery of possession was barred by limitation in respect of transfers made by the mortgagee or by persons claiming under him.

Analysis: Where the mortgagee or a person claiming under him creates an interest in excess of the mortgagee's rights and transfers the property for valuable consideration, the suit against such transferee must be brought within the prescribed period from the date when the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff. The judgment holds that the plaintiff had the burden to plead and prove that the suit was within limitation by showing want of knowledge within the relevant period. No such pleading or proof was furnished. The record also showed open assertion of ownership by the transferees and long-standing possession, supporting deemed knowledge and, in some cases, perfection of title by adverse possession. The High Court's contrary approach was held to be legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation in respect of the impugned transfers, and this issue was answered against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court could not stand because the respondents failed both on title and on limitation. The appeal was allowed and the suit stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed absent a genuine question of law, and a suit to recover property from a transferee who has taken an interest in excess of the mortgagee's rights is barred if the plaintiff does not plead and prove that the suit was filed within limitation from the date of knowledge of the transfer.

---