Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.49 seconds)Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 134 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Harnandrai Badridas vs Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad & Ors on 4 May, 1973
54.As per the decision in Harnandrai Badridas v. Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad,
(1973) 2 SCC 467, it is the Execution Court which has to determine the rights of the
petitioners. Therefore, O.S.No.1264 of 2021 pending on the file of the Sub-Court,
Madurai, shall be transferred to the Execution Court namely, Additional District
Munsif Court, Vadipatti.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Pattam Khader Khan vs Pattam Sardar Khan & Anr on 9 July, 1996
''13.The limitation for the purpose of Article 134 starts from the date of
confirmation of sale. (See Ganpat Singh v. Kailash Shankar [(1987) 3 SCC
146]) In Pattam Khader Khan v. Pattam Sardar Khan [(1996) 5 SCC 48] this
Court held that it is not from the date when sale certificate is issued that the
limitation starts running. The sale becomes absolute on confirmation under
Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code effectively passing title. It cannot be said to attain
finality only when sale certificate is issued under Order 21 Rule 94. There can
be variety of factors conceivable for which delay can be caused in issuing a sale
certificate. The period of one-year limitation now prescribed under Article 134
of the Limitation Act in substitution of a three-year period prescribed under
Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is reflective of the legislative policy of
finalising proceedings in execution as quickly as possible by providing a quick
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25/35
C.R.P(MD).No.171 of 2023
forum to the auction-purchaser to ask for the delivery of possession of the
property purchased within that period from the date of the sale becoming
absolute rather than from the date of issuance of the sale certificate. On his
failure to avail such a quick remedy the law relegates him to the remedy
of a regular suit for possession based on title, subject again to
limitation.''
Article 180 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rahul S Shah vs Jinendra Kumar Gandhi on 23 November, 2021
2) Rahul S.Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Others reported in 2021 (2)
MWN (Civil) 578. The Head Note of the order reads as under:-
Ganpat Singh (Dead) By Lrs vs Kailash Shankar & Ors on 8 May, 1987
''13.The limitation for the purpose of Article 134 starts from the date of
confirmation of sale. (See Ganpat Singh v. Kailash Shankar [(1987) 3 SCC
146]) In Pattam Khader Khan v. Pattam Sardar Khan [(1996) 5 SCC 48] this
Court held that it is not from the date when sale certificate is issued that the
limitation starts running. The sale becomes absolute on confirmation under
Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code effectively passing title. It cannot be said to attain
finality only when sale certificate is issued under Order 21 Rule 94. There can
be variety of factors conceivable for which delay can be caused in issuing a sale
certificate. The period of one-year limitation now prescribed under Article 134
of the Limitation Act in substitution of a three-year period prescribed under
Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is reflective of the legislative policy of
finalising proceedings in execution as quickly as possible by providing a quick
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25/35
C.R.P(MD).No.171 of 2023
forum to the auction-purchaser to ask for the delivery of possession of the
property purchased within that period from the date of the sale becoming
absolute rather than from the date of issuance of the sale certificate. On his
failure to avail such a quick remedy the law relegates him to the remedy
of a regular suit for possession based on title, subject again to
limitation.''