TMI Blog1962 (5) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w months old. On December 21, 1923, Rama Rao second defendant, sold the lands which are the subject-matter of the suit to Rajanna. It appears that as there was some difficulty in Rajanna getting possession of the properties which were stated to have been usufructuary mortgaged to the first defendant, the transaction of sale was cancelled and the same was endorsed on the sale deed. Thereafter the second defendant executed a fresh sale deed in favour of the first defendant and the latter has ever since continued in possession. The appellant filed the present suit on February 14, 1943, for recovery of possession of these properties from the first defendant on allegation that the first defendant was in management of the properties belonging to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fendant sold the properties to him, and that he had therefore acquired a good title to them, and that further as he had been in possession of the properties thereafter for over the statutory period in assertion of a title as owner, he had acquired title to them by prescription and that the suit was barred by limitation. He denied that Rajanna was a minor at the relevant dates as stated in the plain. On these pleadings the District Munsiff framed the following issues :- (1) Whether according to the suit (plaint), the suit lands have been sold by defendant No. 2 in favour of Padma Rajanna through registered sale deed dated 17th Bahman 1334-F (corresponding to 21st Dec. 1923) ? (2) Whether as stated by the plaintiff in his suit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the District Judge, held that the suit was instituted more than three years after the plaintiff had attained majority and dismissed the appeal. It is against this Judgment that the present appeal by special leave has been filed. 3. The first contention that is urged on behalf of the appellant is that the finding that the plaintiff had attained majority more than three years prior to the suit was erroneous. But there are concurrent findings on what is a question of fact, and we see no sufficient reason to differ from them. 4. The contention strongly urged by Mr. Gopal Singh in support of the appeal is that the first defendant had been put in management of all the properties belonging to the plaintiff's family and that havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rden of proving that he was not the manager on to him. Vide Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka Pandara and Guruswami Nadar v. Gopalaswami Odayar I.L.R. (1919) Mad. 629. 6. But then it is pointed out by the respondent that the suit lands had come into his possession under a usufructuary mortgage executed by the second defendant in 1916, that there was no allegation that this mortgage was obtained by him while he was the manager of the family properties or on behalf of the family, and that when once his possession has been traced to the usufructuary mortgage of 1916, there could be no question thereafter of his having entered into possession of the properties as manager on behalf of the family. Before us the appellant did not dispute th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r since 1923, when the second defendant sold them to him, that he had thereby acquired a prescriptive title to them, and that the right of the appellant to redeem was thereby extinguished. It is not disputed that when a person gets into possession of properties as mortgagee, he cannot by any unilateral act declaration of his prescribe for a title by adverse possession against the mortgagor, because in law his possession is that of the mortgagor. But what is contended is that if the mortgagor and mortgagee subsequently enter into a transaction under which the mortgagee is to hold the properties thereafter not as a mortgagee but as owner that would be sufficient to start adverse possession against the mortgagor if the transaction is for any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... latter. Vide Varatha Pillai v. Jeevanathammal]. And that was clearly adverse to the owners. The answer of the appellant to this contention is that Rajanna himself was a minor at the time when this arrangement is stated to have taken place and that in consequence no title by adverse possession can be founded on it. We agree that if Rajanna was a minor when he entered into this arrangement that would not operate to alter the character of possession of the first defendant as mortgagee. The respondent contended that there could be adverse possession against a minor in certain circumstances, and relied on the decision in Sitharama Raju v. Subba Raju I.L.R. (1921) Mad. 361, in support of this position. That is not questioned, but the point for de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
