PADMA VITHOBA CHAKKAYYA versus MOHD. MULTAN!

PADMA VITHOBA CHAKKAYYA versus MOHD. MULTAN!

If Rajanna was a minor when the cancellation and subsequent sale to the first defendant occurred, the first defendant could not acquire prescriptive title by adverse possession, as a minor cannot consent to change of character of possession; whether adverse possession operates depends on Rajanna's age at the relevant time.

Parties
Appellant: Padma Vithoba Chakkayya; Respondent: Mohd. Multani; Respondent No. 1: A. V. Rangam
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 May 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Remand to Trial Court on Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Judgment Affirming Dismissal of Suit
Outcome
Case remanded for fresh inquiry
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Usufructuary Mortgage, Limitation, Redemption of Mortgage, Rights of Minors
Property Law Adverse Possession Usufructuary Mortgage Limitation Redemption of Mortgage Rights of Minors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Padma Vithoba Chakkayya

Appellant

Mohd. Multani

Respondent

A. V. Rangam

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Remand to Trial Court on Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Judgment Affirming Dismissal of Suit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether possession of usufructuary mortgagee can become adverse by arrangement with a minor mortgagor
  2. 2 Effect of unregistered cancellation of sale deed between minor and mortgagee
  3. 3 Limitation period for suit for possession by minor on attaining majority

Ratio Decidendi

If Rajanna was a minor when the cancellation and subsequent sale to the first defendant occurred, the first defendant could not acquire prescriptive title by adverse possession, as a minor cannot consent to change of character of possession; whether adverse possession operates depends on Rajanna's age at the relevant time.

Court Disposition

Case remanded for fresh inquiry

Orders

  • Case remanded to District Munsiff for fresh inquiry on whether Rajanna was major or minor at relevant date.
  • Plaintiff to amend plaint to suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage of 1916.