[1] It is not necessary to consider the effect of Section 50 of the Registration Act in this case, as we find that the second, defendant has been in possession as usufructuary mortgagee, although under an unregistered instrument, since 1877, and there is nothing in Section 50 of the Registration Act to affect the operation of the Law of Limitation in favour of a person who claims under an unregistered document vide Nallamuthu Pillai v. Betha Naicken I.L.R. 23 M.
37. The fact that the second defendant has been latterly for some years claiming under an invalid sale does not make his possession the less adverse to the plaintiff. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Balakrishtnamma Subudhi v. Vinayaka Rama Singi
Balakrishtnamma Subudhi v. Vinayaka Rama Singi
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Second Appeal No. 1153 Of 1900 | 03-03-1902
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASHYAM AIYANGAR
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOORE
Eq Citations
- (1903) ILR 26 MAD 72
- LQ/MadHC/1902/37
Head Note
Limitation — Law of Limitation Act, 1859 — S. 22 — Limitation — Limitation in favour of person claiming under unregistered document — Law of Limitation Act, 1859, S. 22 — Registration Act, 1908, S. 50
