Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Article 44 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
The Limitation Act, 1963
Mt. Tamiz-Un-Nissa Bibi vs Muhammad Husain on 30 April, 1928
3. The only question which has been argued before me in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff was or was not entitled to sue for possession without also praying for cancellation or avoidance of the lease. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has relied on the decision in Aziz-un-nissa v. Siraj Husain (1931) 21 AIR All 507 and also on the observations of the Court in Basdeo Narain v. Mohammad Yusuf (1928) 15 AIR All 617. But both those cases are distinguishable. In the last-named case there was a lease of agricultural land, whereas in the case which is now before me there is a finding that the lease was not agricultural; and therefore the analogy of Section 45, Tenancy Act of 1926, which was there invoked, is inapplicable.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bijoy Gopal Mukerji vs Srimati Krishna Mahishi on 7 February, 1907
In Bijoy Gopal Mukerji v. Krishna Mahishi Debi (1907) 34 Cal 329, the plaintiffs sued as reversioners for possession of property which had been transferred on lease for 60 years by the late owner's deceased widow. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the plaintiffs were entitled to sue for possession, treating the alienation as a nullity. At p. 333 they say:
Basdeo Narain vs Muhammad Yusuf And Ors. on 10 July, 1928
3. The only question which has been argued before me in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff was or was not entitled to sue for possession without also praying for cancellation or avoidance of the lease. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has relied on the decision in Aziz-un-nissa v. Siraj Husain (1931) 21 AIR All 507 and also on the observations of the Court in Basdeo Narain v. Mohammad Yusuf (1928) 15 AIR All 617. But both those cases are distinguishable. In the last-named case there was a lease of agricultural land, whereas in the case which is now before me there is a finding that the lease was not agricultural; and therefore the analogy of Section 45, Tenancy Act of 1926, which was there invoked, is inapplicable.
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kovvuri Thirujpathi Raju vs Kovvuri Venkataraju, Minor By His ... on 21 September, 1916
In Thirupathi Raju v. Venkataraju (1918) 5 AIR Mad 1038, it was held by a Bench of the Madras High Court that a suit by a member of a joint Hindu family for possession of property alienated by the manager during the plaintiff's minority, describing himself as the guardian of the minor, is not a suit to set aside a sale by a guardian to which Article 44, Limitation Act, applies, but is one for possession of immovable property within the meaning of Article 144.
1