Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)Section 164 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rambhau Namdeo Gajre vs Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (Dead) Through ... on 25 August, 2004
38. Coming to the case in hand, I find that the original defendant Nos. 9 and 10 have no independent right to claim any protection but they are claiming their rights as assignees of the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and as such whatever protection is available to the letters, would be extendable to them. There is subtle yet clear distinction between the facts of the present case and the fact situation in Rambhau Namdeo Gajre (D) by L.Rs. v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotre (supra). In the case before the Apex Court, the allegation was that the true owner was dispossessed from the land by the third party, who was transferee of said Pishorilal Punjabi. Thus, they were completely strangers and there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the third party. Had said Punjabi been a party to that suit, his plea of part performance could be decided on merits. It was his choice to raise such a defence or to abandon the same.
Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004
In case of Ramiah v. N.N. Reddy (supra), the Apex Court held that the applicability of the relevant Article (Article 64 or 65) has to be decided on the basis of pleadings. But, by suppression of material facts, and skillful pleadings, the plaintiff cannot seek to avoid any inconvenient Article. In the given case, the plaintiff was ousted from the property in 1971 and had filed the suit in 1984. The Apex Court held that Article 64 was applicable because, the plaintiff failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit land within twelve years of the date of the suit. The Apex Court held that Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is restricted to suits for possession on dispossession or discontinuance of possession and Article 65 is a residuary Article applying to suit for possession not otherwise provided for. It is observed, "suits based on the plaintiff's title in which there is no allegation of prior possession and subsequent dispossession alone can fall within Article 65". In the present case, it is not a suit in which there is allegation of prior possession and subsequent dispossession. The suit is based on title and illegal dispossession at hands of the defendants. Hence, it is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act.