Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Sanni Bibi And Anr. vs Munshi Siddik Hossain And Ors. on 29 July, 1918

Bachchi Devi And Others vs Radheshyam Guptadied Thr. Lrs Urmila ... on 5 March, 2019

Sanni Bibi v. Siddik Hossain, AIR 1919 Cal 728 and Brindaban v. Dhurba Charan, AIR 1929 Cal 606. It is not the contention of the appellant in the present case that there was any fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the gift deed but Shiddappa fraudulently included in the gift deed plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village without her knowledge. We are accordingly of the opinion that the transaction of gift was voidable and not void and the suit must be brought within the time prescribed under Article 95 of the Limitation Act."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Rajesh vs Narayanan Nair on 21 June, 2022

Sanni Bibi v. Siddik Hossain, AIR 1919 Cal.728, and Brindaban v. Dhurba Charan, AIR 1929 Cal.606. It is not the contention of the appellant in the present case that there was any fraudulent misrepresentation as to Review Petition Nos.401 of 2022 in R.S.A.No.809 of 2013 & Review Petition Nos.405 of 2022 in R.S.A.No.810 of 2013 18 the character of the gift deed but Shiddappa fraudulently included in the gift deed plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village without her knowledge. We are accordingly of the opinion that the transaction of gift was voidable and not void and the suit must be brought within the time prescribed under Art. 95 of the Limitation Act."
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M R Anitha - Full Document

Appanna vs Jami Venkatappadu And Ors. on 17 November, 1952

In -- 'Sanni Eibi v. Siddik Hossain', AIR 1919 Cal 728 (M) the suit was for recovery of possession of certain properties in respect of which the plaintiff had executed a deed of sale. The plaintiff also prayed for cancellation of the deed on the ground that it was represented to her that the deed was a 'jimbanama' for her maintenance and that she did not know or believe that she was executing a deed of sale. That was found as a fact by the District Munsif. Nevertheless, he held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Limitation Act. Newbould and Panton J.I. held that on that finding, the principle of the decision in -- '(1869) 4 CP 704' (L), would apply and that the deed would be void and that Article 91 would be inapplicable to such a case. In -- 'AIR 1921 Cal 786 (789) (K), already cited, the allegations in the plaint were that the defendant had taken a deed of gift and exchange from the plaintiff Rengamoni Devi on a representation that it was a power of attorney for the management of the estate and that she executed the document without the knowledge of its true character. The suit was dismissed by Buckland J. as barred by limitation under Article 95. On appeal, Sanderson C. J. and Richardson J. held following the decision in -- '(1869) 4 CP 704' (L), that if the allegations in the plaint were established the transaction would be void and that neither Article 95 nor Article 91 would apply to that case. Richardson J. observed:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mukund Bhavan Trust vs Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje ... on 20 December, 2024

“It (signature) is invalid not merely on the ground of fraud, where fraud exists, but on the ground that the mind of the signer did not accompany the signature; in other words, that he never intended to sign, and therefore in contemplation of law never did sign, the contract to which his name is appended…. The defendant never intended to sign that contract or any such contract. He never intended to put his name to any instrument that then was or thereafter might become negotiable. He was deceived, not merely as to the legal effect, but as to the ‘actual contents’ of the instrument.” This decision has been followed by the Indian courts Sanni Bibi v. Siddik Hossain [AIR 1919 Cal 728], and Brindaban v. Dhurba Charan [AIR 1929 Cal 606]. It is not the contention of the appellant in the present case that there was any fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the gift deed but Shiddappa fraudulently included in the gift deed plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village without her knowledge. We are accordingly of the opinion that the transaction of gift was voidable and not void and the suit must be brought within the time prescribed under Article 95 of the Limitation Act.” 19.1. In the present case, the right to sue had first accrued to the predecessors of the plaintiff, when the properties were brought for sale by the court. No challenge was made to the court auction or to the conveyance in 1952. At this length of time, we can only assume that the predecessors of the Plaintiff had not initiated any proceedings as according to them, either it was a grant of soil or during that period, the rights had not resumed. The plaintiff had become a major by 1984. By virtue of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff has a right to seek a declaration that the alienation of a property in which he had a right, was void within 3 years. Though the Article prima 27 facie looks to be applicable only to cases, where there was an alienation by the guardian, we feel that the period of limitation would be applicable even when a third party had alienated the share or property of a minor. Even otherwise, Article 58 would come into operation and the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date when he became a major to seek any declaratory relief, as it is the date on which his right to sue first is deemed to have been accrued. The plaintiff has asserted that by government resolutions in 1980 and 1984 he has acquired the title over the properties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patel Sureshbhai Kanjibhai vs Yasminabanu Abdul Rahim W/O Abdul Rajak on 13 April, 2026

This decision has been followed by the Indian courts Sanni Bibi v. Siddik Hossain [AIR 1919 Cal 728], and Brindaban v. Dhurba Charan [AIR 1929 Cal 606]. It is not the contention of the appellant in the present case that there was any fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the gift deed but Shiddappa fraudulently included in the gift deed plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village without her knowledge. We are accordingly of the opinion that the transaction of gift was voidable and not void and the suit Page 32 of 60 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 13 22:39:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/52/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026 undefined must be brought within the time prescribed under Article 95 of the Limitation Act." 19.1. In the present case, the right to sue had first accrued to the predecessors of the plaintiff, when the properties were brought for sale by the court. No challenge was made to the court auction or to the conveyance in 1952. At this length of time, we can only assume that the predecessors of the Plaintiff had not initiated any proceedings as according to them, either it was a grant of soil or during that period, the rights had not resumed. The plaintiff had become a major by 1984. By virtue of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff has a right to seek a declaration that the alienation of a property in which he had a right, was void within 3 years. Though the Article prima facie looks to be applicable only to cases, where there was an alienation by the guardian, we feel that the period of limitation would be applicable even when a third party had alienated the share or property of a minor. Even otherwise, Article 58 would come into operation and the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date when he became a major to seek any declaratory relief, as it is the date on which his right to sue first is deemed to have been accrued. The plaintiff has asserted that by government resolutions in 1980 and 1984 he has acquired the title over the properties. Therefore, as a prudent man, he ought to have initiated necessary steps to protect his interest. Having failed to do so and created a fictional date for cause of action, the plaintiff is liable to be non-suited on the ground of limitation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brindaban Misra Adhikary vs Dhruba Charan Roy And Ors. on 21 March, 1929

3. Mr. Pal argues on the strength of this decision that the plaintiff's suit must fail. No doubt this decision lends considerable support to the contention of the learned vakil. As a matter of fact, however, the decision of that particular point which I have just referred to was not necessary, as far as can be seen, for the decision of that particular case ; and therefore to that extent the decision must be considered as obiter. On the other hand the case of Sanni Bibi v. Siddik Husain [1919] 23 C.W.N. 93 a decision directly in point, it has been held that when it is established that the plaintiff by defendant's misrepresentation was induced to execute a deed of sale believing the same to have been a deed of a different kind the transaction is void and not voidable only, and Article 91, Lim. Act has no application to his suit to recover the property. It will be seen that that decision is directly in point, because in this case the plaintiff sues as the transferee of defendant 3 and stands in her shoes. Defendant 3 was induced by the misrepresentation of defendant 2 to execute a deed of a different kind to what she thought she was executing. It has been found that she thought that she was executing a power-of-at tourney when she was really executing a deed of gift.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next