Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.31 seconds)Section 145 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 28 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 144 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raja Jagatjit Singh vs Raja Partab Bahadur Singh on 28 April, 1942
33. It is true Article 47 of the Limitation Act does not apply where there has been no order for possession by the Magistrate under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and, "if the suit is one for a declaration of title only, to such a case Article 120 of the Limitation Act would apply, Jagatjit Singh v. Raja Partab Bahadur Singh, AIR 1942 PC 47 (II). But here, there is an order for possession by the Magistrate under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, against the plaintiffs and in favour of Naurang Singh, the ancestor of defendants 2 to 5, and the present suit is not only a suit for a declaration of their title to the property in possession of the defendants, but also for recovery of possession of the same. In such circumstances, Article 47 of the Limitation Act is the only article which would apply to the present case. Admittedly, the ancestors of the parties to the present litigation were parties to the proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of the disputed property, and therefore, their ancestors as well as the present parties to the suit were bound by the Magisterial order passed therein.
W. Subbalakshmi Ammal vs Narasimiah on 11 January, 1927
26. Mr. B.C. De, in reply, relied on two Bench decisions: Bolai Chand Ghosal v. Samiruddin Mandal, ILR 19 Cal 646 (F), and W. Subbalakshmi Ammal v. Narasimiah, AIR 1927 Mad 586 (G). In my opinion, none of the cases touch the point at issue, and, therefore, they do not help Mr. De at all.
Dwijendra Narain Roy vs Joges Chandra De And Ors. on 31 December, 1923
18. As to what is the true test to determine when a cause of action has accrued to a plaintiff Mookerjee, J. in Dwijendra Narain Roy v. Jogesh Chandra De, AIR 1924 Cal 600 (A) observed: