SONI LALJI JETHA & ORS. versus SONI KALIDAS DEVCHAND & ORS.

SONI LALJI JETHA & ORS. versus SONI KALIDAS DEVCHAND & ORS.

The sale in favour of the appellants was not void but voidable at the instance of respondents due to their prior contract; appellants, being mortgagees in a fiduciary position with notice, did not hold adverse possession against respondents, and thus the suit for redemption was not barred by limitation even though the statutory period had expired.

Parties
Appellant: SONI LALJI JETHA & ORS.; Respondent: SONI KALIDAS DEVCHAND & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 October 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court on Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Specific Performance, Mortgagee Rights, Fiduciary Obligations, Limitation, Transfer of Property
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Specific Performance Mortgagee Rights Fiduciary Obligations Limitation Transfer of Property

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SONI LALJI JETHA & ORS.

Appellant

SONI KALIDAS DEVCHAND & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court on Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether possession of mortgagee after sale to himself is adverse to the mortgagor and subsequent purchaser under an earlier agreement to sell
  2. 2 Whether the decree for specific performance and subsequent sale deed affect the character of possession of the mortgagee
  3. 3 Whether suit for redemption and possession is barred by limitation due to alleged adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The sale in favour of the appellants was not void but voidable at the instance of respondents due to their prior contract; appellants, being mortgagees in a fiduciary position with notice, did not hold adverse possession against respondents, and thus the suit for redemption was not barred by limitation even though the statutory period had expired.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.