https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299994 The mortgage deeds were construed as covering Mauza Bahaldih as part of one composite security, because the covenants and default clauses authorised sale of all named properties, including that mauza. On limitation, a suit to enforce money charged on immovable property fell under Article 132 and had to be filed within twelve years from when the money became due; part payment under Section 20 extended time only if made by a person still liable and still interested in the mortgaged property. Accordingly, payments made after the mortgagor had transferred his interest could not save the earlier mortgage claim, which was time-barred, while the later mortgage remained within limitation. Dispossession of the mortgagee did not itself extend time under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2022 17:34:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299994 The mortgage deeds were construed as covering Mauza Bahaldih as part of one composite security, because the covenants and default clauses authorised sale of all named properties, including that mauza. On limitation, a suit to enforce money charged on immovable property fell under Article 132 and had to be filed within twelve years from when the money became due; part payment under Section 20 extended time only if made by a person still liable and still interested in the mortgaged property. Accordingly, payments made after the mortgagor had transferred his interest could not save the earlier mortgage claim, which was time-barred, while the later mortgage remained within limitation. Dispossession of the mortgagee did not itself extend time under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299994