TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Mortgage redemption suit time-barred under Article 134 Limitation Act. Interpretation of 'transfer' key.</h1> <h3>Mulla Vittil Seeti Kutti and Ors. Versus K.M.K. Kunhi Pathumma and Ors.</h3> The court majority held that the suit to redeem a mortgage was barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, with the limitation period ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Article 134 of the Limitation Act.2. Interpretation of 'transfer' under Article 134.3. Starting point for limitation under Article 134.4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.5. Whether the plaintiffs are bound to pay certain amounts before redeeming the mortgage.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Article 134 of the Limitation Act:The primary issue is whether the suit to redeem a mortgage is barred under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, which sets a 12-year limitation period from the date of transfer by the mortgagee. The court examined whether this article applies when the transferee did not take possession immediately upon transfer.2. Interpretation of 'Transfer' under Article 134:The court discussed the interpretation of 'transfer' in Article 134. It was argued that 'transfer' should mean transfer with possession. The court rejected this interpretation, stating that 'transfer' refers to the date of the conveyance, not the date when possession is taken. The language of Article 134 does not imply transfer with possession, and this interpretation would alter the statutory starting point, reverting to the old law of adverse possession.3. Starting Point for Limitation under Article 134:The court held that the starting point for the limitation period under Article 134 is the date of the transfer, not the date when possession is taken. This interpretation aligns with the intent to provide a definite period for bringing an action, avoiding the complexities of determining when possession became adverse.4. Whether the Suit is Barred by Limitation:The court concluded that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 134. The mortgagees had transferred the property more than 12 years before the suit was filed, and the plaintiff had no occasion to sue the transferees until they took possession. The court emphasized that once time begins to run, it cannot be suspended except under specific provisions of the Act.5. Whether the Plaintiffs are Bound to Pay Certain Amounts Before Redeeming the Mortgage:The court addressed whether the plaintiffs are required to pay Rs. 9,000 and Rs. 125 before redeeming the mortgage. It was determined that the plaintiffs must pay Rs. 125 as it was the amount due to the previous mortgagee. However, the court held that the suit is in time regarding the Rs. 9,000 mortgage, as the 5th defendant took possession in 1900, and the suit was filed within 12 years from that date.Separate Judgments:John Edward Power Wallis, J.:Wallis, J. emphasized that Article 134 applies from the date of the transfer, not the date of possession. He rejected the notion of interpreting 'transfer' as transfer with possession and held that the suit is barred by limitation.Abdur Rahim, J.:Rahim, J. opined that 'transfer' means transfer with possession. He argued that time should run from when the transferee is given possession, and the suit is not barred as the transferee took possession within 12 years before the suit.V.M. Coutts Trotter, J.:Coutts Trotter, J. agreed with Wallis, J. that 'transfer' does not mean transfer with possession. He acknowledged the hardship but emphasized that the plain words of the statute must be followed.T.V. Seshagiri Iyer, J.:Seshagiri Iyer, J. argued that 'transfer' should be interpreted as transfer with possession. He concluded that the suit is in time as the transferee took possession within 12 years before the suit.V.V. Srinivasa Iyengar, J.:Srinivasa Iyengar, J. held that Article 134 does not apply unless the transferee had possession on the date of the transfer. He concluded that the suit is in time as the transferee took possession within 12 years before the suit.Conclusion:The court's majority opinion held that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 134, starting from the date of the transfer. However, there were differing opinions on whether 'transfer' should mean transfer with possession and the starting point for the limitation period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
