Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Rani & Anr vs Kailash Chand & Anr on 17 February, 1977

Ishwar Devi And Anr. vs Elite Electrical Industries on 12 April, 1983

In Raj Rani (supra), another case relied upon by counsel for the defendants, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that in cases governed by Act of 1908, at any rate, a plaintiff admitting dispossession, in suits based on title, had to prove that be was in actual or constructive possession within twelve years and hence, the change in law. The difficulty in deciding the question whether Article 142 or 144 applies to a case, which really depends upon an interpretation of the pleadings, was sought to be removed in the Act of 1963 by a more clarified position in Articles 64 and 65 of Act of 1963. The reasons for changes were also noticed by their Lordships that Articles 142 and 144 had given rise to a good deal of confusion with respect to suits for possession by owners of property.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sachin Jeevanrao Bodhankar vs Trimbakrao Shriramrao Deshpande on 16 July, 2009

24. Learned senior counsel Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of the defendant further relied on the Judgment in the matter of Smt. Raj Rani and another vs. Kailash Chand and another, reported in AIR 1977 S.C. Page 1123. In this case the Apex Court held that if the plea of limitation is taken in pleading, then same to be decided by the Court by framing appropriate issues. The Apex Court also held that the plaintiff claiming possession in a suit based on title, has to prove that he was in actual or constructive possession within 12 years as per Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - K K Tated - Full Document

Shabana Durrani vs Shahbaz Khan on 19 March, 2024

30. There is passing reference to these Articles in the cases of Prasanna and others (supra) and Raj Rani and another v. Kailash Chand and another, (1977) 3 SCC 468, but these are merely the passing references to the position of law in respect of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 prior to the promulgation of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the changes which were brought about by Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the issue as to whether Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (J&K Limitation Act) was applicable to the suits for possession based on possessory rights or to the suits based on title has not been thoroughly debated, discussed and decided by any judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Kalooram And Anr. vs Mangilal on 2 August, 1984

4. It is now well settled that under the old Limitation Act of 1908, all suits for possession, whether based on proprietary title or on the ground of previous possession, were governed by Article 142 where the plaintiff, while in possession, was dispossessed. As held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Raj Rani v. Kailash Chand, AIR 1977 SC 1123, in cases governed by the Limitation Act, 1908, a plaintiff admitting dispossession, in suits based on title had to prove that he was in actual or constructive possession within 12 years. The contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent was that the fact that n the previous suit for partition instituted by the defendant-appellants, they had contended that there was no partition and that the suit property was the joint family property in possession of all the members of the family would attract the provisions of Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, cannot be upheld. In view of the Judgment of the High Court in that case, it is no longer open to the parties to contend that the suit property was joint family property after the year 1932 or that the parties were in joint possession of the suit property. Moreover, in view of the specific allegations made by the plaintiff of prior possession and dispossession, the provisions of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, must be held to be applicable in the instant case. The lower appellate Court thus erred in law in holding that the suit was governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and that the burden was on the defendants to prove that they were in adverse possession for more than 12 years.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bhaiga Pradhan vs Iswar Adhikari And Anr. on 27 June, 1986

6. The submission made by Mr. Mohanty that a suit originally brought on the. basis of possession based on title is bound to fail if title is not proved, is wholly untenable. There is no authority for such a proposition. Reliance was placed on AIR 1977 S. C. 1123 (Smt. Raj Rani and Anr. v. Kailash Chand and another), 1978 (46) CLT 287 (Budhi Mahal and Ors. v. Gangadhar Das and others) and 1974 (I) CWR 46 (Gobinda Pradhan and Ors. v. Chaturbhuja Parida and others). On a perusal of these decisions, the least that can be said is that they have no application to the case, AIR 1977 S. C. 1123 was a case where the scope of Arts, 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act vis-a-vis Arts. 142 and 144 of the Old Limitation Act were discussed and the change in the law was indicated. 1976(46) CLT 287 is a decision to the same effect and in no way supports the proposition advanced by Mr. Mohanty. The decision merely explains that under Art. 65 of the New Limitation Act all that the plaintiff is required to prove is only his title and that if the defendant wants to defeat the right of the plaintiff he has to establish that he has perfected a prescriptive title by adverse possession for a period of 12 years. 1974 (1) CWR 46 cited by Mr. Mohanty is an authority to the same effect and has no bearing on the question raised by him.
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1