Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.45 seconds)Documents citing
Nurul Islam vs Esratun Bibi on 26 July, 2017
4.07.19 vs Babla Mandi on 4 July, 2019
In view of the decision of the Division Bench of
the Court relied on by Mr. Mukherjee the learned
advocate for the petitioner reported in Nurul Islam vs.
Esratun Bibi, reported in 2017 (3) CHN (CAL) 678.
the period of limitation for filing an application for pre-
emption on the ground of non-notified co-sharership
under Sections 8 and 9 of the said Act is governed by
Article 97 of the limitation Act, 1963 and the said
period of limitation will begin to run from the date
when the purchaser takes under the sale sought to be
impeached physical possession of the whole or part of
4
the property.
6.03.19 Anadi Gain vs Subodh Shikary on 6 March, 2019
The point of limitation involved in the present
4
pre-emption application is required to be re-considered
in the light of the judgment of the larger bench of this
Court in the case of Nurul Islam Vs. Esratun Bibi
(supra).
(Somen Roychowdhury vs Bidyut Sarkar) on 24 January, 2019
Smt. Mukula Konar vs Sri Bijoy Krishna Mondal & Anr on 29 July, 2019
6. Mr. Arup Banerjee, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner relying on
the larger Bench decision of this Court in the case of NURUL ISLAM Vs.
ESRATUN BIBI reported in 2017(3) CHN (CAL) 678 submits that Article 97 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 would govern the period of limitation for filing an
application under Section 8 of the said Act to pre-empt a transfer on the ground
of non-notified co-sharership but both the learned Courts below have erroneously
applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in reckoning the said period of
limitation as three years from the date of completion of the registration of the
disputed deed of transfer.
Sankar Basani vs Dulal Basani & Ors on 20 November, 2019
The Larger Bench of this Court answered the said question in the case of
Nurul Islam Vs. Earatun Bibi reported in 2017(3) CHN 678 holding that such
limitation is governed by the Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The following paragraphs of the said report being relevant are reproduced
below:-
Abhijit Agarwala Alias Abhijit Agarwal vs Md. Badiruddin on 15 November, 2021
My attention is invited to a Division Bench decision
reported in 2017 (3) CHN (Cal) 678 (Nurul Islam Vs. Esratun
Bibi) adverting to paragraph 35 and concluding paragraph 39 to
submit that Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the
appropriate provision which govern the period of limitation for
filing application for pre-emption by the non-notified co-sharer.
Paragraph 35 is reproduced thus for profitable
consideration-
Lal Mohan Kulsi & Anr vs Sunil Ghosh & Ors on 13 March, 2023
8. It is not in dispute in the present case that the application for pre-
emption has been filed by the pre-emptor/opposite party, who is a non notified
co-sharer. Division Bench of this court in a judgment of Nurul Islam Vs.
Esrathun Bibi reported in 2017 (3) Cal.L.J. (Cal) 241 have held that
applying Article 97 of the Limitation Act of 1963, the period of limitation for
filing pre-emption application by the non-notified co-sharer will be one year
and the starting point of limitation will be different depending upon
4
circumstances as prescribed in the third column of the schedule of Article 97.
Now the third schedule provides time from which period begins to run:-
Israfil Sk vs Kangali Sk. (Since Deceased) His Legal ... on 18 February, 2020
The special Bench of this Court in the case of Nurul Islam Vs.
Esratun Bibi, reported in 2017 (3) CHN (Cal) 678 has held that
the limitation to exercise the right of pre-emption on the ground
of non-notified co-sharership would be governed by Article 97 of
the Limitation Act, 1963.
Abhijit Agarwal vs Md. Badiruddin on 16 August, 2021
Upon hearing learned counsel for both the
parties, it appears that the trial court dismissed a
pre-emption application on the ground of
limitation; whereas the appellate court affirmed
such decision on a different ground, that the pre-
emption application did not lie on the ground of
co-sharership, in view of partition having already
been effected by virtue of a partition decree
passed by a competent civil court.
2
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of
this Court, reported at 2017(3) CHN (CAL) 678
(Nurul Islam vs. Estarun Bibi). It was categorically
held in the said judgment, that in case of a non-
notified co-sharer, the right to enforce pre-
emption is governed by Article 97 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. The third column of Article
97 of the 1963 Act clearly stipulates that the time
from which the limitation period begins to run is,
when the purchaser comes under the sale sought
to be impeached, physical possession of the whole
or part of the property sold, or, where the subject-
matter of the sale does not admit of physical
possession of the whole or part of the property,
when the instrument of sale is registered.