Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Surajmal And Anr. vs Mangilal And Anr. on 10 January, 1977

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

Even in Surajmal (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the defendants, the objects and reasons of Act of 1963 are again noticed. It is then observed that Article 64 is restricted to suits based on possessory title so that the owner of property does not lose his right to property unless the defendant in possession is able to prove the adverse possession. Article 65 is new and deals with suits based on title and this is so stated in that case. In my opinion, there is a vital difference in the language employed in Article 142 of Act of 1908 and Article 65 of Act of 1963. Under Article 142, a defendantsplaintiff is required to prove title and possession within twelve years. Under Article 65 of Act of 1963, in a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest thereof based on title, the period of limitation is twelve years and the time from which period begins to run is when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Under the Act of 1963 in a suit based on title even if dispossession is also alleged, the defendant can succeed only if he proves that his possession had become adverse to the plaintiff beyond twelve years of the suit. The plaintiff need to prove only his title, which he has established on the record of this case.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

J.Doss vs Rukmangadhan on 22 June, 2010

In SURAJMAL AND ANOTHER Vs. MANGILAL (AIR 1978 RAJASTHAN 22), it has been held that "the objects and reasons of the Limitation Act, 1963, no dobut states that, 'Arts. 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, have given rise to a good deal of confusion with respects to suits for possession by owners of property'. It was, therefore, proposed 'to replace Art.142 by Art.64; but it is restricted to suits based on possessory title so that an owner of property does not lose his right to property unless the defendant in possession is able to prove the adverse possession'. They further state that, 'Art.65 is new and deals with suits based on title'. Merely because Art.64 of the new Act was now restricted to suits based on possessory title, that would not, in our mind, curtail the ambit of Art.142 of the old Act.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document
1