Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Sudarshan Prasad And Ors. vs Radha Kishun Ram (Deceased By Lrs.) on 7 January, 1982

Kishun vs State Of U P And 5 Others on 2 July, 2021

I. The respondent no.3-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj, shall decide the restoration application filed for recall of the order passed in the year 2008 in Case No. 1019/242 of 2008, Intrajeet and others Vs. Kishun, under the appropriate provisions of law preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Bhanot - Full Document

Narada Maharana vs Pramila Kumari Dei on 22 June, 2001

B. K. Ghose v. Dwijendra Chunder Ghose, AIR 1951 Calcutta 414 and Sudarshan Prasad v. Radha Kishun Ram (deceased by L.Rs. ); AIR 1982 Allahabad 218 are on a different context Inasmuch as in view of the decisions referred to in the preceding paragraphs there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision cannot be sustained and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court has to be set aside and so it is done.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - P K Mohanty - Full Document

Visvanathan vs Ramanujam on 1 April, 2011

In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the decision in Sudarshan Prasad v. Radha Kishun Ram, reported in AIR 1982 Allahabad 218. In this case, it is held that in a suit to set aside sale deed of joint Hindu family on ground that it was without legal necessity, plaintiffs pleaded that they first came to know of sale deed when alienees objected their attempt to construct wall on suit property, the lower Courts gave concurrent finding that the alienees were in possession of the property since the date of sale deed. Under this circumstance, it was held that in such a case, the Article applicable is 109 and not 59 for purposes of limitation, and as the suit was filed after 12 years when alienee took possession of property, it was barred by limitation.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - T Mathivanan - Full Document

Baljinder Singh vs Lt. Col. Rattan Singh on 10 August, 2009

In Sudarshan Prasad's case (supra), the question arose whether the alienation by grand-father would fall within Article 109 of the Limitation Act. It was held that expression 'father' as used in Article 109 of the Limitation Act, could in an appropriate case include grand-father and even a great grand-father. It was also held that if Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, did not apply then the appropriate Article to be applied to a suit of this kind was Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Rathnamma vs Smt. Sudharani on 2 February, 2023

15) In the authorities relied by Defendant No.5 to 10, 20 and 21 in (1) AIR 1982 Allahabad 218 in Sudarshan Prasad and Others Vs Radha Kishun Ram in para 22 and 23 it is held that 'expression father used in Article 109 of Limitation Act include even the grand father, great grand father, paternal uncle or grand uncle on the theory that a son includes a grandson and great son'. The Plaintiff's must be deemed to have had knowledge, on the date on which sale deed was executed and possession was delivered to the vendee or on date when sale deed was duly registered, for if the Plaintiff's had made proper enquires in the nature of the alinee's possession they would have come to know of existence of the saled eed 19 O.S.No.8399/2016 or but for the willful abstention from an enquiry or search which they ought to have made, or gross negligence on their part they would have known it. It was held possession of alinee becomes adverse against the coparcenary from the date on which he enters into possession under the alleged sale deed to be invalid.
Bangalore District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1