Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Harnandrai Badridas vs Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad & Ors on 4 May, 1973

D. Rangappa vs G. Mudlappa And Ors. on 3 August, 2005

Therefore, in view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harnandrai's case, it is clear that the suit was not maintainable and the remedy of the auction purchaser is to make an application in the Executing Court, in view of the explanation to Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is a binding precedent on all the Courts, it is clear that the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff holding that the suit is not maintainable, and in view of the same, it is unnecessary to go into the contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as to the right of the auction purchaser to pursue both the remedy under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC., and by filing a suit for possession under Article 65(c) of the Limitation Act. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that ingredients of Order 21 Rule 95 CPC., were not satisfied in the present case has no basis either in the pleading or evidence and was not contended before the first appellate Court or Trial Court and it is a pure question of fact which does not give rise to any substantial question of law among the parties to this appeal. Accordingly, I answer both the substantial questions of law in the affirmative and pass the following order:
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - V G Sabhahit - Full Document

Muthurama Subramanian vs K.Ramu Reddy (Died) ... 1St on 15 November, 2022

54.As per the decision in Harnandrai Badridas v. Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad, (1973) 2 SCC 467, it is the Execution Court which has _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 27 of 30 C.R.P.(MD) No.171 of 2023 to determine the rights of the petitioners. Therefore, O.S.No.1264 of 2021 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, shall be transferred to the Execution Court namely, Additional District Munsif Court, Vadipatti.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

R. Rangantha Naidu vs R. Subramaniya Mudaliar on 8 January, 1998

However, the lower appellate Court by mis-construing Ex.A-2 and forgetting the specific averment in the plaint erroneously distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in Harnandraj v. Debidutt, . For the reasons mentioned above, the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court cannot be sustained. In as much as the present suit is hit by section 47, C.P.C. the suit as laid is liable to be dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

➢ Turning to the common law remedy of instituting a suit for recovery of property based on title, this is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It provides that the suit must be laid before the expiry of 12 years since the defendant's possession has become adverse to the title of the plaintiff. It in effect does not bar a suit, but it leaves it to the ability of the defendant to establish the non- maintainability of the suit with his pleading and proof of adverse possession. Divestiture of title by adverse possession cannot be presumed merely because the defendant was in possession of the property for more than twelve years either if he does not plead, or having pleaded, fails to prove nec vi, nec clam and nec precario vis-a-vis his possession for an uninterrupted twelve years. ➢ The difference between Articles 134 and 65 of the Limitation Act are not just confined to the period of limitation that they prescribe, but also on the point of their operation. While Article 134 operates right at the point when the auction purchaser invokes Order XXI Rule 95 CPC to obtain delivery, there is no such impediment when 15/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 a regular suit for possession is filed, since there is no period of limitation for instituting the suit as explained above. 12.1 The law as it stood prior to Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, provided twin options to the auction-purchaser: He could either seek delivery under Order XXI Rule 95 within one year, or alternatively can file a suit for recovery of possession. See: Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bagwati Prasad & Others [(1973)2 SCC 467]. The current pursuit is to understand if on the arrival of Explanation II(b) in the legislative scene, whether the equation is altered, and whether the judgements rendered post 1976 amendment to the CPC which retained the original idea of twin remedies (available to the auction-purchaser), have overlooked the express terms of Explanation II(b)?
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

➢ Turning to the common law remedy of instituting a suit for recovery of property based on title, this is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It provides that the suit must be laid before the expiry of 12 years since the defendant's possession has become adverse to the title of the plaintiff. It in effect does not bar a suit, but it leaves it to the ability of the defendant to establish the non- maintainability of the suit with his pleading and proof of adverse possession. Divestiture of title by adverse possession cannot be presumed merely because the defendant was in possession of the property for more than twelve years either if he does not plead, or having pleaded, fails to prove nec vi, nec clam and nec precario vis-a-vis his possession for an uninterrupted twelve years. ➢ The difference between Articles 134 and 65 of the Limitation Act are not just confined to the period of limitation that they prescribe, but also on the point of their operation. While Article 134 operates right at the point when the auction purchaser invokes Order XXI Rule 95 CPC to obtain delivery, there is no such impediment when 15/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 a regular suit for possession is filed, since there is no period of limitation for instituting the suit as explained above. 12.1 The law as it stood prior to Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, provided twin options to the auction-purchaser: He could either seek delivery under Order XXI Rule 95 within one year, or alternatively can file a suit for recovery of possession. See: Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bagwati Prasad & Others [(1973)2 SCC 467]. The current pursuit is to understand if on the arrival of Explanation II(b) in the legislative scene, whether the equation is altered, and whether the judgements rendered post 1976 amendment to the CPC which retained the original idea of twin remedies (available to the auction-purchaser), have overlooked the express terms of Explanation II(b)?
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

➢ Turning to the common law remedy of instituting a suit for recovery of property based on title, this is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It provides that the suit must be laid before the expiry of 12 years since the defendant's possession has become adverse to the title of the plaintiff. It in effect does not bar a suit, but it leaves it to the ability of the defendant to establish the non- maintainability of the suit with his pleading and proof of adverse possession. Divestiture of title by adverse possession cannot be presumed merely because the defendant was in possession of the property for more than twelve years either if he does not plead, or having pleaded, fails to prove nec vi, nec clam and nec precario vis-a-vis his possession for an uninterrupted twelve years. ➢ The difference between Articles 134 and 65 of the Limitation Act are not just confined to the period of limitation that they prescribe, 15/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 but also on the point of their operation. While Article 134 operates right at the point when the auction purchaser invokes Order XXI Rule 95 CPC to obtain delivery, there is no such impediment when a regular suit for possession is filed, since there is no period of limitation for instituting the suit as explained above. 12.1 The law as it stood prior to Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, provided twin options to the auction-purchaser: He could either seek delivery under Order XXI Rule 95 within one year, or alternatively can file a suit for recovery of possession. See: Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bagwati Prasad & Others [(1973)2 SCC 467]. The current pursuit is to understand if on the arrival of Explanation II(b) in the legislative scene, whether the equation is altered, and whether the judgements rendered post 1976 amendment to the CPC which retained the original idea of twin remedies (available to the auction-purchaser), have overlooked the express terms of Explanation II(b)?
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

➢ Turning to the common law remedy of instituting a suit for recovery of property based on title, this is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It provides that the suit must be laid before the expiry of 12 years since the defendant's possession has become adverse to the title of the plaintiff. It in effect does not bar a suit, but it leaves it to the ability of the defendant to establish the non- maintainability of the suit with his pleading and proof of adverse possession. Divestiture of title by adverse possession cannot be presumed merely because the defendant was in possession of the property for more than twelve years either if he does not plead, or having pleaded, fails to prove nec vi, nec clam and nec precario vis-a-vis his possession for an uninterrupted twelve years. ➢ The difference between Articles 134 and 65 of the Limitation Act are not just confined to the period of limitation that they prescribe, but also on the point of their operation. While Article 134 operates right at the point when the auction purchaser invokes Order XXI Rule 95 CPC to obtain delivery, there is no such impediment when 15/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 a regular suit for possession is filed, since there is no period of limitation for instituting the suit as explained above. 12.1 The law as it stood prior to Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, provided twin options to the auction-purchaser: He could either seek delivery under Order XXI Rule 95 within one year, or alternatively can file a suit for recovery of possession. See: Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bagwati Prasad & Others [(1973)2 SCC 467]. The current pursuit is to understand if on the arrival of Explanation II(b) in the legislative scene, whether the equation is altered, and whether the judgements rendered post 1976 amendment to the CPC which retained the original idea of twin remedies (available to the auction-purchaser), have overlooked the express terms of Explanation II(b)?
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

➢ Turning to the common law remedy of instituting a suit for recovery of property based on title, this is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It provides that the suit must be laid before the expiry of 12 years since the defendant's possession has become adverse to the title of the plaintiff. It in effect does not bar a suit, but it leaves it to the ability of the defendant to establish the non- maintainability of the suit with his pleading and proof of adverse possession. Divestiture of title by adverse possession cannot be presumed merely because the defendant was in possession of the property for more than twelve years either if he does not plead, or having pleaded, fails to prove nec vi, nec clam and nec precario vis-a-vis his possession for an uninterrupted twelve years. ➢ The difference between Articles 134 and 65 of the Limitation Act are not just confined to the period of limitation that they prescribe, but also on the point of their operation. While Article 134 operates right at the point when the auction purchaser invokes Order XXI Rule 95 CPC to obtain delivery, there is no such impediment when 15/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 a regular suit for possession is filed, since there is no period of limitation for instituting the suit as explained above. 12.1 The law as it stood prior to Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, provided twin options to the auction-purchaser: He could either seek delivery under Order XXI Rule 95 within one year, or alternatively can file a suit for recovery of possession. See: Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bagwati Prasad & Others [(1973)2 SCC 467]. The current pursuit is to understand if on the arrival of Explanation II(b) in the legislative scene, whether the equation is altered, and whether the judgements rendered post 1976 amendment to the CPC which retained the original idea of twin remedies (available to the auction-purchaser), have overlooked the express terms of Explanation II(b)?
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

Teluguntla Hema Bala Sundari And Ors. vs Pandiri Sakuntalamma And Ors. on 6 August, 1982

22. The learned counsel, however, submits that sec. 47 should be liberally construed as it has been enacted for the purpose of checking endless litigation and eliminating unnecessary delay which a fresh trial might entail. He invited our attention to the decision of the privy council in prosunno coomar sanyal v. Kasi Das Sanyal, (1892) 19 Ind App 166 Which was cited with approval in harnandrai Badridas v. Debidutt Bhagwati prasad (supra). The Supreme Court observed: "S. 47 in our view should be construed liberally. As far back in 1892 (1892) 19 Ind App 166 (pc) the privy council spoke strongly in favour of puttin a liberal construction on sec. 244 of the code of civil procedure of 1882 which corresponds to sec. 47 of the code of 1908. The privy council reiterated this in ganapathy v. Krishnamachariar, (1918) 45 Ind App 54: (AIR 1917 PC 121)."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next