Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raj Rani & Anr vs Kailash Chand & Anr on 17 February, 1977
4. It is now well settled that under the old Limitation Act of 1908, all suits for possession, whether based on proprietary title or on the ground of previous possession, were governed by Article 142 where the plaintiff, while in possession, was dispossessed. As held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Raj Rani v. Kailash Chand, AIR 1977 SC 1123, in cases governed by the Limitation Act, 1908, a plaintiff admitting dispossession, in suits based on title had to prove that he was in actual or constructive possession within 12 years. The contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent was that the fact that n the previous suit for partition instituted by the defendant-appellants, they had contended that there was no partition and that the suit property was the joint family property in possession of all the members of the family would attract the provisions of Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, cannot be upheld. In view of the Judgment of the High Court in that case, it is no longer open to the parties to contend that the suit property was joint family property after the year 1932 or that the parties were in joint possession of the suit property. Moreover, in view of the specific allegations made by the plaintiff of prior possession and dispossession, the provisions of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, must be held to be applicable in the instant case. The lower appellate Court thus erred in law in holding that the suit was governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and that the burden was on the defendants to prove that they were in adverse possession for more than 12 years.
Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa Singh & Ors on 16 August, 1973
6. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant-appellants should not be allowed to take advantage of the provisions of the Limitation Act to defeat the plaintiffs claim. But as observed by the Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2537, one of the objects of the law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches. I may usefully refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court at page 2543 :
1