Chellappan Vs. A.Meeran Pillai(Dead) Through LRS.  INSC 1211 (14 July
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.443 OF 1999 M. Chellappan
...Appellant(s) Versus A. Meeran Pillai (Dead) Through L.R.S. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
learned counsel for the parties.
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:
Whether the plaintiff can be termed as the purchaser of equity of redemption
from Sankaran Velayudhan to enable him to redeem the property? and  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- 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.
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
to say that second appeal will be considered without being prejudiced by any
observation made in this order.
......................J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J. [G.S. SINGHVI]
July 14 2009.
Pages: 1 2 3