Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)

Seshumull M. Shah vs Sayed Abdul Rashid And Others on 20 August, 1990

In the instant case, Khatunbi is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and after her death, by operation of law, the plaintiffs as well as defendants 4 to 6 became the co-owners and each one of them are having definite share in the property. Hence, article 65B is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He relied upon the commentary on Limitation Act, 27 1963 by Sanjeeva Rao, IX Edition. He also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1991 KAR 273 (SESHUMULL M SHAH v/s SYED ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS) wherein this court examined articles 65 and 68 of the Limitation Act and held that the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property and possession has been claimed as consequence of declaration, which governs article 65 and not article 68 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have sought for partition and possession of the property and also declaration that the sale deed dated 28-4-1972 is not binding on the plaintiffs insofar as their 1/4th share is concerned. Hence, article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable and the suit has been filed within the period of limitation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - B P Singh - Full Document

Jagat Ram vs Varinder Prakash on 22 March, 2006

Hence, the suit is barred by limitation. The courts below have not considered the effect of Section 65 of the Limitation Act. Further, the appellants are entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act since they are bonafide purchasers of the property for a valuable consideration. She has relied upon the judgment reported in II (2006) CLT 37(SC) (JAGAT RAM 18 v/s VARINDER PRAKASH). Hence sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside judgment and decree passed by the both the courts below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - B P Singh - Full Document
1