https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303576 In a challenge to a Hindu father's mortgage of joint family property, the court held that the official receiver was not a necessary party because the receiver's interest was confined to the insolvent's assets and the secured creditor's right to realise the security remained protected. It also held that collusion could be inferred where the adult alienors stayed out of the witness-box, and that surrounding business circumstances justified a presumption of legal necessity for the mortgage. On limitation, the suit was treated as one not involving possession, so the residuary limitation article applied from the date the right to sue accrued, rendering the suit time-barred. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:34:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303576 In a challenge to a Hindu father's mortgage of joint family property, the court held that the official receiver was not a necessary party because the receiver's interest was confined to the insolvent's assets and the secured creditor's right to realise the security remained protected. It also held that collusion could be inferred where the adult alienors stayed out of the witness-box, and that surrounding business circumstances justified a presumption of legal necessity for the mortgage. On limitation, the suit was treated as one not involving possession, so the residuary limitation article applied from the date the right to sue accrued, rendering the suit time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303576