https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196898 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. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:56:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196898 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196898