Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.19 seconds)
Chintalapati Varahalamma vs Gavva Nallayya And Ors. on 31 October, 1960 cites

Kunwar Muhammad Ubaid-Ullah Khan vs Kunwar Muhammad Abdul Jalil Khan on 25 February, 1937

Some of the cases cited by the appellant's learned counsel have been noticed in the above judgment and were distinguished on the lines indicated herein. The principle laid down in this decision was reaffirmed in Ubaid-Ullah Khan v. Abdul Jalil Khan, AIR 1937 All 481 where their Lordships held that the limitation is not suspended as there is no provision in the Act suspending limitation in circumstances similar to those existing in the present case. The receipt of rents and profits by the defendants was wrongful from the outset notwithstanding the fact that a litigation was pending wherein the dispute to be decided was as to the title to the very property with respect to which the rents and profits were claimed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sharoop Dass Mondal vs Joggessur Roy Chowdhry on 11 April, 1899

4. The plaintiff has preferred the above appeal and it is urged before us that the suit is governed not by Article 109 of the Limitation Act, but by Article 120 which gives the plaintiff the period of six years from the date when the cause op action accrues. It may be noticed that Article 120 is a residuary Article and resort cannot be had to it unless no other Article is attracted. Vide Sharoop Dass Mondal v. Joggessur Roy, ILR 26 Gal 564 at p. 567 (FB) and Vedagiri Sastriar v. Jagthguru Sankarachariar, at Kumbakonam, 68 Mad LJ 132, at p 135 : (AIR 1935 Mad 128 at P 129). We have no doubt that on the pleadings the claim clearly falls within Article 109 which reads as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next