Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Section 23 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 149 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajrup Koer vs Abul Hossein And Ors. on 14 July, 1880
As we have stated already, the present case falls within the principle of Section 23 of the Indian Limitation Act and the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by Article 120 or by Article 142 or by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, Our view is supported by the decision of the Privy Council in Rajrup Kore v. Abul Hossein, ILR 6 Cal 394 (C) in which the defendants had obstructed the flow of water along a water channel belonging to the plaintiff. It was that the obstruction was a continuous act and the cause of action accrued de die in diem and Section 23 of the Limitation Act applied and the suit of the plaintiff was not barred.
Section 28 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sir Hukum Chand vs Maharaj Bahadur Singh on 12 May, 1933
There is another decision of the Privy Council in Hukum Chand v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh ILR 12 Pat 681: (AIR 1933 PC 193) (D) where the question at issue was whether alterations made by the Swetambaris in the character
of the charans in certain shrines on Parasnath Hill were continuing wrongs within the meaning of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, It was held by the Privy Council that a suit for a declaration brought by Digambaris more than six years after the alterations was not barred as to that matter by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, be-cause the alterations were a continuing wrong within the meaning of Section 23 of that Act. At page 692 (of ILR Pat) : (at p. 197 of AIR) Sir John Wallis states:-
Sarat Chandra Mukherjee vs Nerode Chandra Mukherjee And Ors. on 24 January, 1935
There is a decision to the similar effect in Sarat Chandra v. Nerodo Chandra AIR 1935 Cal 405 (F) where the principle of the decision reported in ILR 6 Cal 394 (C) was applied. We accept the view expressed by this line of authorities and hold that the present case falls within the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Limitation Act and the wrong complained of by the plaintiffs in the present case is a continuing wrong and Article 144 or Article 142 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act have no application. If that is the correct legal position, it follows that the suit of the plaintiffs must be decreed in its entirety and there must be a decree in favour of the plaintiffs even with regard to the portion of plot No. 143 with regard to which the lower appellate Court found that the defendants 1, 4 and 10 had proved adverse possession for more than 12 years.