ADDEPALLI SATYANARAYANA Vs. MUNNALURI RAMA RAO AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a purchaser pendente lite of the mortgagor's right in the hypotheca. The mortgagee obtained a decree, and apparently without knowledge of the transfer to the appellant, the second defendant executed, the decree against the judgment -debtor and obtained symbolical delivery of the property. He filed the present suit for possession just twelve years after he had obtained symbolical delivery. The question is whether the suit is in time, in view of the circumstances that the second defendant was in possession before the decree -holder obtained symbolical delivery. Both the Courts below held that the suit was in time.

(2.) IT has been argued here as a question of fact that symbolical delivery was not regularly given, but it appears from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that the arguments there proceeded on the basis that it was. This second appeal must therefore be disposed of on that basis.