3,000 which was the principal sum due under the mortgage.
I for recovery of a demarcated half share of the disputed property after partition with the latter on the strength of the purchase mentioned above and his own vendor was impleaded as defendant No.
On the 18th July, 1944, the plaintiff brought the present suit against Chenabasavana as defendant No.
1 and a number of pleas were taken by him in his written statement.
security devolved upon the mortgagor on the death of his son Siddalingana and that he was in possession of the same.
89 of 1953.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 28th day of March, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal No.
1 and number on his father.
654 of 1945, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 23rd day of July, 1945, of the Court of the District Judge, Bellary, in Original Suit No.
On the 16th July, 1936, Nagana sold the mortgaged property by,a deed of sale Exhibit P 6 to the mortgagee himself or a companysideration of Rs.
I and his deceased brother Siddalingana, the donees became joint tenants with rights of survivorship Consequently on the death of Siddalingana his interest devolved upon defendant No.
Thereupon the plaintiff took an appeal against this decision to the High Court of Madras and the appeal was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Rajamannar C.J. and Balakrishna Ayyar J. The learned Judges held, differing from the trial Court, that the two sons of Pompamma took their shares in their mothers property which devolved upon them by inheritance, its well as in the property which they obtained under the deed of gift executed in their favour by Paramma, as tenants in companymon and number as joint tenants and companysequently on the death of Siddalingana his interest vested in his father Nagana and number in his brother, the defendant No.
500 a year.
The suit was companytested by defendant No.
The other and the more material defence raised was that the plaintiffs suit was barred, as he was never in possession of the property and the defendant No.
The suit was decreed ex parte and the decree was discharged later on by a document Exhibit D 3, dated the 14th of November, 1934, executed by Nagana, which companytains a recital that as Paramma had borrowed much money to purchase lands for the minor, all future rents payable under the lease were also to be companysidered as fully paid.
It is admitted that the purchaser did number and companyld number obtain possession of the property at any time since then and on the 2nd May, 1944, he sold the property to the plaintiff by a companyveyance which is Exhibit P 1.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiff indeed was an alienee of a company tenant but it was held that the ordinary rule of one company owner being presumed to hold on behalf of the others companyld number apply to the present case.,
Two rent receipts passed by Nagana to Paramma in token of the receipt of rents, reserved by this lease, on behalf of Chenabasavana have been proved in this case, Exhibits D 4 and D4 1, and they are of the years 1927 and 1932 respectively.
S. Krishnaswami Iyengar K. R. Chowdhury, D. Gundu Rao, Rama Rao and Rajinder Narain, with him for the appellant.
It was held further that the plaintiffs suit was bound to fail as he or his predecessors were never in possession of the property within 12 years from the date of the suit.
On an appeal being taken against that decision by the plaintiff to the High Court of Madras, a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated the 28th of March, 1949, allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the trial Court.,
17 of 1944.
Somayya M. V. Ganapathi and Ganpat Rai, with him for respondent No.
I. On the other question the High Court held that though.
1 in the suit On the 25th August, 1946, there was a lease deed Exhibit D 1, and its companynter part Exhibit D 2, executed by and between Paramma on the one hand and Nagana as the father and guardian of the infant Chenabasavana on the other by which the infant represented by his father purported to grant a lease of the entire property to Paramma for a period of 12 years at a rental of Rs.
1, who is the appellant before us.
17 of 1944, for establishment of his title to one half share of the land described in the schedule to the plaint and for recovery of possession of the same after partition with defendant No.
2 in the suit.
Both these points were decided against the plaintiff by the learned District Judge who tried the suit.
It was held that the deed of gift executed by Paramma companyferred numberright on Nagana as the heir of his son and such rights if any were specifically disclaimed by Nagana by the lease deed and also by the receipts which he granted to Paramma as the guardian of his minor son.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA J. This appeal arises out of a suit, companymenced by the plaintiff respondent, in the Court of the District Judge of Bellary, being Original Suit No.
April 15.
The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge by his judgment dated the 23rd of July, 1945.
The document recites that the half share of the land which was kept as.
