14 July 2009
Supreme Court
Download

M. CHELLAPPAN Vs A.MEERAN PILLAI(DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Case number: C.A. No.-000443-000443 / 1999
Diary number: 20258 / 1998
Advocates: K. K. MANI Vs


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.443 OF 1999

M. Chellappan                       ...Appellant(s)

Versus

A. Meeran Pillai (Dead) Through L.Rs.       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the second appeal filed by the respondent, at the time of its admission,  the High Court was of the view that two substantial questions of law arise therein  

and, accordingly, framed the same, which reads thus:

“[1]  Whether  the  plaintiff  can  be  termed  as  the  purchaser  of  equity of redemption from Sankaran Velayudhan to enable him to  redeem the property? and

[2] Whether the Courts below erred in holding that the plaintiff is  in the position of sub-mortgagor having regard to the fact that the  first defendant having already obtained the main mortgage rights  extinguished the sub-mortgages,  Exs.  A-1 and A-3 by obtaining  Ex.  A-6  assignment  and  thereafter  the  first  defendant  had  mortgage  right  besides  equity  of  redemption  and  there  is  no  relation  of  sub-mortgagor  and  sub-mortgagee  between  the  plaintiff and the first defendant in the suit?

After hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court allowed the second  

appeal and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. ...2/-

2

- 2 -  Undisputedly, at the time of admission, no substantial question of law was  

framed on the issue of limitation.  Even at the stage of hearing, no such question of  law was framed.  This being the position, the High Court was not justified in holding  

that the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly,  the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the  

second appeal is remanded to the High Court for its disposal on merits in accordance  with law after framing further substantial question of law in relation to the plea of  

limitation. Needless  to  say  that  second  appeal  will  be  considered  without  being  

prejudiced by any observation made in this order. No costs.

......................J.               [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.               [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, July 14 2009.