Supreme Court overturns dismissal, permits new evidence in mortgage redemption suit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in a suit for redemption of a mortgage, overturning lower court decisions that dismissed the suit as time-barred due ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Supreme Court overturns dismissal, permits new evidence in mortgage redemption suit.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in a suit for redemption of a mortgage, overturning lower court decisions that dismissed the suit as time-barred due to uncertainty regarding the mortgage date. The Court emphasized the plaintiff's burden to prove limitation and permitted the introduction of a 1913 mortgage deed as additional evidence. The Court held that this evidence could establish the suit was filed within the limitation period, remanding the case to the High Court for further consideration based on the new evidence.
Issues involved: Determination of period of limitation in a suit for redemption of mortgage.
Summary: In a case involving a suit for redemption of a mortgage, the main issue was the period of limitation. The suit property was mortgaged in 1913, but the actual date of the mortgage was unknown. The trial court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation due to lack of clarity on the mortgage date. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, considered the relationship between the parties and the onus of proving limitation. The High Court allowed the appeal based on the established relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee.
The appellant argued that the suit should be barred by limitation as the date of mutation was not the date of the mortgage. On the other hand, the respondent sought to introduce additional evidence, a registered mortgage deed from 1913, to prove that the suit was within the limitation period. The respondents claimed inheritance of the mortgaged properties and disputed the defendant's denial of the relationship between the parties.
The Supreme Court held that limitation is a question of jurisdiction and that the onus to prove limitation lies on the plaintiff. The Court found that the respondents had grounds to adduce additional evidence, specifically the 1913 mortgage deed, which could establish that the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous judgment, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for the consideration of the additional evidence.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
