AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arnold White, C.J.—In this case I think the Subordinate Judge was wrong in his conclusion. With regard to the question of limitation, the
ground of his decision, so far as I understand it, was that, inasmuch as in the earlier suit of 1901 the plaintiff set up a case that the mortgage was
bad, the defendant was able to prescribe for title by adverse possession from the date of mortgage, that is, the 22nd June 1892, to the extent of
the mortgage interest.
Then, as regards the other point which was argued before us, namely, Section 13 of the CPC of 1882 operating as a bar to this suit by reason
of the earlier suit of 1901 having been brought, in which the plaintiff set up the case of the mortgage being bad, the question is settled, so far, at any
rate as this Presidency is concerned, by long series of authorities. I may refer to the cases of Ramasawmy Iyer v. Vythinatha Iyer 26 M.k 760,
Veerana Pillai v. Muthukumara Asary 27 M.k 102, Parangadan Nair v. Peruntoduka Illat Chata 27 M.k 380, Paranbath Manakkal v. Puthengattil
Moosamne 28 M.k 406, Thirukaikat Madathil Raman v. Thiruthiyil Krishana Nair 29 M. k 153 and Masilamania Pillai v. Thiruvengadam Pillai 31
M.k 385. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the case to the District Munsif for disposal according to law. Costs
will abide the event.
Krishnaswamy Iyer, J.
I entirely concur.