A.

Limitation Period: Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963By a mortgagee(a) for foreclosure -30 years -When the money sued for mortgage becomes due; (b) for possession of immovable property mortgaged -12 years When the mortgaged becomes entitled to possession. [I believe (a) will be applicable for the purpose of Limitation].
B. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Secretary Vs. Samyukta Alagappan, Sole Proprietrix of Sriya Enterprises and Sekar Alagappan [High Court of Madras] [Single Judge Bench] 25. It is also evident from the above said documents and also Ex.P14, the title deed relating to the immovable property described in the plaint schedule that an equitable mortgage has been created by the second Defendant, the owner of the said property by depositing the said title deed with intend to create a security for the suit amount. In paragraph 8 of the written statement of the Defendants, they have made clear admission that the Defendants had given a cheque and documents relating to the property at Nerkundram as collateral security with intention to create an equitable mortgage. But the learned Counsel for the Defendants would contend that since the property described in the plaint schedule, title deeds relating to which has been deposited as security for the amount outstanding from the first Defendant, situates outside the territory over which this Court exercises original jurisdiction, the suit on mortgage filed in this Court is not maintainable and that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try thesuit, so far as it tries to enforce the liability on the equitable mortgage regarding the property described in the suit. It has also been contended that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it comprises a prayer for enforcement of the right of the mortgage under the alleged mortgage in respect of the property described in the plaint schedule, as the said property is situated outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. The said contention cannot be countenanced. A Division Bench of this Court in Bank of Madurai Ltd. v. Balaramadas & Brothers and Ors. reported in MANU/TN/0185/1985 : AIR 1985 Mad 1 has ruled that the Madras High Court has full jurisdiction to hear a suit on equitable mortgage for recovery of money by the sale of the mortgage property irrespective of the location of the mortgage property as such a suit shall not be a suit for land and therefore it can be filed in any Court, if the other jurisdictional facts are available, namely where the cause of action arose or where the Defendant resides or carries on business. Therefore, the said contention on the question of jurisdiction raised by the Defendants also deserves to be rejected.