Nagalakshmi (Died) vs /
4. The plaintiff has averred that the Murugaiyan
who was the executor of the will died on 15.11.1991 and
that the defendant has not paid any installments or any
rent. As such the possession of the defendant became
adverse to the plaintiff immediately upon the death of
Murugaiyan on 15.11.1991. In para 7 of his plaint,
Plaintiff claims that proceedings arising out of
O.S.Nos.197 of 1987 and 392 of 1992 were pending, the
period has to be excluded under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act. It is well established that Section 14
applies only in cases where the present plaintiff was the
plaintiff in the earlier case. But admittedly the plaintiff
was not a party to the said cases and his father was only
11/28
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.88 of 2010
& C.M.P.No.1074 of 2020
a Defendant in those cases (1942 CJ (Mad) 74 and
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited Vs. Road Master Industries India
(P) Ltd.)