PADMA VITHOBA CHAKKAYYA vs MOHD. MULTANI

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's suit for possession was time-barred under the Limitation Act, but he could maintain a suit for redemption if the mortgagee had not acquired title by adverse possession. The Court established that a mortgagee's possession could become adverse only if there was a change in the character of possession with the owner's consent, which was not possible as the mortgagor was a minor and incapable of giving consent. The endorsements on the sale deed were admissible to show the character of possession, but since Rajanna was a minor, the possession could not be deemed adverse.