In Brief
The plaintiff sued for permanent injunction against the defendant's interference with mortgaged property allegedly redeemed decades earlier. The trial court decided redemption and limitation as preliminary issues, dismissing the suit. The District Judge reversed, holding these were mixed questions of fact and law requiring full trial evidence. The High Court's review improperly reinstated the trial court's order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that issues combining factual and legal elements—especially where one (limitation) depends on facts of another (redemption)—cannot be decided as preliminary issues and must be tried fully with evidence recorded.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.