Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 August, 2009
Of course, in O.S. No. 767 of 1991,
defendants No.1 to 5 denied the title of the plaintiffs, but
it is not known when these defendants filed written
statement in the suit. Probably written statement must
have been filed in the year 1992. If that period is taken
into consideration, the present suit filed during 1995 is
within the period of limitation, considering Article 58 of
the Limitation Act. That being the position, advocate for
legal representatives of defendant No.5 cannot take the
assistance of decision reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME
31
O.S.No. 5327/ 1995
COURT 3590 (KHATRI HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED AND
ANOTERH VS. UNION OF INDIA). If this principle is
applied to the case on hand, certainly the suit is within a
period of limitation. Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 in
affirmative.
J.M. Narayana And Ors. vs Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore, By ... on 17 December, 2003
18. On going through the above reading of the plaint in
O.S. No. 767 of 1991 it goes to very clear that in the year
1991 itself the suit schedule property lost its agricultural
characteristic. It further discloses that the plaintiff
stopped the payment of land revenue in respect of the
suit schedule property to the Government. Merely
because conversion order is not passed on that sole
ground it cannot be considered as still the suit schedule
property is agricultural land. A private layout has been
formed in the year 1975 itself and number of sites sold in
favour of third parties. There is material to show that
number of residential houses have been constructed in
the house sites. The BBMP has started to collect taxes
from the house owners. At this stage, it is very useful to
refer the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in J.M. NARAYANA AND OTHERS
VS. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE AND
OTHERS reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60. Para 5 and 6 are
extracted as under.
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Punjab Land Revenue Rules
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sant Singh And Ors. vs Des Ram And Ors. on 14 March, 1974
23. It has come in evidence of PW 1 that he is not aware
which defendant encroached, to what extent. On the
other hand, a general allegation is made against the
defendants No. 6 to 12 to the effect that defendants No.1
to 5 colluding with officials of Doddabanaswadi
Panchayta, created some documents and sold house
sites by giving bogus numbers. Mere pleadings is not
sufficient to upheld this contention. It discloses that
plaintiffs were not aware which defendant encroached to
what extent. It is not known when these defendants
encroached the B-schedule property. The Hon'ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in AIR 1974 PUNJAB AND
HARYANA 276 (SANT SINGH AND OTHERS VS. DES
RAM AND OTHERS) held as under.