Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Seshumull M. Shah vs Sayed Abdul Rashid And Others on 20 August, 1990

Raja Ram vs Smt. Asha Bi W/O Allabax Pendheri on 11 February, 2013

In the instant case, Khatunbi is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and after her death, by operation of law, the plaintiffs as well as defendants 4 to 6 became the co-owners and each one of them are having definite share in the property. Hence, article 65B is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He relied upon the commentary on Limitation Act, 27 1963 by Sanjeeva Rao, IX Edition. He also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1991 KAR 273 (SESHUMULL M SHAH v/s SYED ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS) wherein this court examined articles 65 and 68 of the Limitation Act and held that the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property and possession has been claimed as consequence of declaration, which governs article 65 and not article 68 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have sought for partition and possession of the property and also declaration that the sale deed dated 28-4-1972 is not binding on the plaintiffs insofar as their 1/4th share is concerned. Hence, article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable and the suit has been filed within the period of limitation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A N Gowda - Full Document

Sh.Ripu Daman Haryal & Anr. vs Miss Geeta Chopra & Anr. on 4 July, 2011

Similarly, I have gone through the judgments in the case title Seshumull M. Shah Vs. Saye Abdul Rashid & Ors AIR 1991 Karnataka 273 and Roop Lal Sathi Vs. Machhattar Singh Gill (1982) 3 SCC 487, the same also does not help the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiff‟s plaint has not been rejected in part, it has been rejected in its entirety.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 6 - V K Shali - Full Document

Crystal Developers vs Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh (Dead)Thr.Lrs.Ors on 5 October, 2004

In the case of Seshumull M. Shah v. Sayed Abdul Rashid & others reported in [AIR 1991 Karnataka 273], it has been held that in every case, where a transferee for valuable consideration seeks protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee must show that the real owner had permitted the apparent owner either by express words, consent or conduct to transfer the property in favour of the transferee. In other words, it must be shown that with the consent of the true owner, the ostensible owner was able to represent himself as the owner of the property to the purchaser for value without notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

G.Nanda Kumar vs Ramakrishnappa on 19 December, 2015

On the other hand referring to the decisions reported at 2008(6) KLJ 100 (N.Muniswamy v M.Lalitha), (1998) 1 SCC 614 (Indira v Arumugam and another) and 1991(1) KLJ 320 (Seshumull M.Shah v Sayed Abdul Rashid and others) Sri.KTN, Advocate submitted that this suit being mainly for recovery of possession, Article-65 which is applicable and period of limitation is 12 years. I have anxiously applied my mind to the arguments canvassed by the learned counsels. Firstly I would like to refer to Sec.12(1) of the Limitation Act which lays down that, while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. If this principle is applied and 31.10.2000 day, as submitted by Sri.RC, Advocate is excluded, certainly filing of suit on 31.10.2003 is well within the period of limitation, even assuming that suit is one under Article-58 of the Limitation Act which deals with the declaratory relief.
Bangalore District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Husain Khan S/O Hashimsab Diddi vs Jayanagar Co-Operative Housing ... on 26 April, 2018

(ii) Further placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Seshmull M. Shah Vs. Sayed Abdul Rashid reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2857, with reference to Para 7, the learned counsel argued that, where possession was claimed as a consequence of the title, the suit would be governed by Article 65 and not by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, as erroneously held by the trial Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - J M Cunha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next