Limitation under Article 61(b): mortgage transfers, constructive notice, and date of knowledge govern burden on the plaintiffs.

Article 61(b) of the Limitation Act requires proof of a mortgage by conditional sale, a subsequent transfer of a larger interest by the mortgagee for valuable consideration, and possession continuing for the requisite period after the transfer became known to the plaintiffs. On the facts discussed, the mortgagee's sale deeds described absolute ownership, the transferees mutated their names and paid rent, and constructive notice to the plaintiffs could be inferred. The plaintiffs initially bore the special burden of showing that they learned of the transfer within twelve years before suit. The lower appellate court erred by not recording a finding on the date of knowledge, so the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendants had established the ingredients of Article 61(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 so as to shift the burden on the plaintiffs to prove that the suit was within limitation, and whether the lower appellate court erred in not determining the date of the plaintiffs' knowledge of the transfer.

Analysis: The transaction under the mortgage deed was found to be a mortgage by conditional sale, and the mortgagee's subsequent transfers were treated as transfers of a larger interest for valuable consideration. The Court held that, for Article 61(b), the defendants had to prove the mortgage, the transfer of a larger interest by the mortgagee for valuable consideration, and continued possession for the requisite period after the transfer became known to the plaintiffs. On the facts proved, the mortgagee's sale deeds recited absolute ownership, the transferees mutated their names and paid rent, and constructive notice to the plaintiffs could be inferred. The Court further held that the special burden lay initially on the plaintiffs to show that they acquired knowledge of the transfer within twelve years before the suit, and the lower appellate court had misdirected itself by omitting a finding on that aspect.

Conclusion: The defendants established the foundational requirements for invoking Article 61(b), but the suit could not be finally dismissed without affording the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove the date of their knowledge of the transfer. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration on limitation.

---