THOLASINGA MUDALI Vs. NAGALINGA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lower Court has found that Veerasami had actual knowledge that his vendor had only a mortgagee s interest when Veerasami made his purchase in 1893. We cannot say that this finding is wrong and, on the other hand, the circumstantial evidence fully corroborates the oral evidence of the plaintiff and supports the findings of the lower Court. If Veerasami had actual knowledge, he could not have purchased "in the full belief" [see Radanath Doss v. Gisborne & Co. 14 M.I.A. 1; 15 W.R. (P.C.) 24; 6 B.L.R. 530; 2 Suth. P.C.J. 397; 2 Sar. P.C.J. 636; 20 E.R. 687 that his transferor had an absolute interest.

(2.) The further argument of the respondent s learned Counsel was that the change in the language in the Limitation Act of 1908 (Article 134) by the substitution of the words transferred by" for the words purchased from" made the conditions imposed by the decision in Radanath Doss v. Gisborne & Co. 14 M.I.A. 1; 15 W.R. (P.C.) 24; 6 B.L.R. 530; 2 Suth. P.C.J. 397; 2 Sar. P.C.J. 636; 20 E.R. 687, on the purchaser who wished to take advantage of the corresponding Article in the older Limitation Act, inapplicable to a transferee who claims the benefit of Article 134 in the Act of 1908.

(3.) The whole question was fully considered in Singaram Chettiar v. Kalyanasundaram Pillai 26 Ind. Cas. 1: 1 L.W. 687; (1914) M.W.N. 735 after the passing of the 1908 Limitation Act by the present Chief Justice and Hannay, J., and we cannot accept the argument that the change in the language was not given sufficient weight to by the learned Judges. We might add that the change does not appear to us material on this point.