KESHAV RAGHUNATH JOSHI Vs. GAFURKHAN DAIMKHAN BUBERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to recover by redemption possession of the plaint property. The property had been mortgaged with possession in 1891 by one Ganpat Bhiva Chavan for himself and as guardian of his minor nephew Krishna Babaji Chavan to the first defendant's father Martand. The equity of redemption eventually came to two girls, Kondi and Niri, from whom the plaintiff purchased in 1918.

(2.) In 1902, Martand sold the property to the second defendant purporting to be the owner thereof, and the second defendant has since been in possession.

(3.) It is clear then that any suit against the second defendant to recover possession of the suit property must fall under Art. 134 of the Indian Limitation Act if it is not filed within twelve years from the date of the transfer. But the appellant wishes to rely on the fact that within a few months of the transfer, the second defendant acquired the knowledge that Martand was a mortgagee and not an owner. Defendant No. 2 stated that he asked Martand why he sold the property if he was only a mortgagee, and Martand said he had become the owner in pursuance of an agreement, which he promised to give to the second defendant later on. Whether that story is true or not, the Indian Limitation Act makes no provision for the case of a transferee who gives valuable consideration at the time of transfer from an ostensible owner, but finds later on that his transferor was only a mortgagee, and not owner of the property transferred.