Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Neelmani Singh vs Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi & Ors. on 18 April, 2023 cites

Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati (Dead)By L.Rs vs Prem Prakash & Ors on 10 May, 1995

32. Furthermore, the law has not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition because partition is an incident of the property and there is always a cause of action for seeking partition by one of the co-sharers, if he decides not to keep his share joint with the other co- sharers. Since, the filing of the suit is entirely dependent on the will of the co-sharer, the period of limitation, specifically the date or time from which such period would begin, could not have been conceivably prescribed by the legislature. Consequently, no such provision exists in the law of limitation with regard to suits for partition. The has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati v. Prem Prakash reported as (1995) 4 SCC 496.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 89 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008

35. Furthermore, the position of law with respect to adjudication of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is settled that only the contentions/averments raised in a plaint are to be considered, the objection raised in the written statement and application are immateriale to decide an application filed under the said provision. The Court has to read the plaint in its entirety in order to decide that whether or not a plaint discloses a cause of action and if it does, then such plaint is not liable to rejection by virtue of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The same has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttrakhand, (2008) 10 SCC 97.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 35 - D K Jain - Full Document

Md. Noorul Hoda vs Bibi Raifunnisa And Ors on 1 December, 1995

8. It is submitted that in light of the facts and circumstances of the instant case and even as per the plaintiff herself the cause of action first arose on 3rd October, 1992 and then on 21st January, 1992 and thereafter third week of February, 1993. Therefore, the plaintiff/non-applicant cannot be permitted to raise the contentions by way of the instant suit after an in-ordinate delay of 28 years. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Noorul Hoda v. Bibi Raifunissa and Ors; (1996) 7 SCC 767 and Abdul Rahim v. S.K. Abdul Zabar; (2009) 6 SCC 160 whereby it was held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs a lawsuit for annulment of a transaction, regardless of whether the transaction is null or voidable. Therefore, the suit should have been filed within three years of the date on which the plaintiff had knowledge that the allegedly void or voidable transaction had occurred. Due to Signature Not Verified I.A. No. 8955/2021 in CS(OS) 207/2021 Page 3 of 15 Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:19.04.2023 13:19:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:2619 the fact that the suit was not filed within three years, it is liable to be held as barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 114 - Full Document

Abdul Rahim & Ors vs Sk.Abdul Zabar & Ors on 6 March, 2009

8. It is submitted that in light of the facts and circumstances of the instant case and even as per the plaintiff herself the cause of action first arose on 3rd October, 1992 and then on 21st January, 1992 and thereafter third week of February, 1993. Therefore, the plaintiff/non-applicant cannot be permitted to raise the contentions by way of the instant suit after an in-ordinate delay of 28 years. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Noorul Hoda v. Bibi Raifunissa and Ors; (1996) 7 SCC 767 and Abdul Rahim v. S.K. Abdul Zabar; (2009) 6 SCC 160 whereby it was held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs a lawsuit for annulment of a transaction, regardless of whether the transaction is null or voidable. Therefore, the suit should have been filed within three years of the date on which the plaintiff had knowledge that the allegedly void or voidable transaction had occurred. Due to Signature Not Verified I.A. No. 8955/2021 in CS(OS) 207/2021 Page 3 of 15 Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:19.04.2023 13:19:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:2619 the fact that the suit was not filed within three years, it is liable to be held as barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 80 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next