https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272492 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. en-us Wed, 27 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272492 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272492