Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Raja Shiva Prasad Singh vs Hira Singh And Ors. on 25 April, 1921
Similar was the conclusion of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Shiva Prasad Singh v. Hira Singh, AIR 1921, Par 237:
Bindhyachal Chand And Ors. vs Ram Gharib Chand And Ors. on 3 May, 1934
(8) The same question came to be considered by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhindhyachal Chand v. Ram Gharib Chand in AIR 1934 All 993. The question referred to the Full Bench was
"Where a plaintiff who was a co-sharer with some of the defendants who transferred a part of the property to third parties, admits in the plaint that he was dispossessed by the transferees some time prior to the institution of the suit, whether Art. 142, Limitation Act, or Art. 144 applies."
Bohra Kanhaiya Lal vs Girwar And Ors. on 28 June, 1929
The answer given by the Full Bench was that Art. 142 of the Limitation Act applied. Another case of the same High Court reported in Kanhaiya Lal v. Girwar, AIR 1929 All. 753 has been relied on by the Full Bench above referred to and the Full Bench above referred to and the Full Bench declined to accept it as good law. I need not, therefore, discuss that case any further.
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Mahaboob Sir Frazvant Sri Raja ... on 28 January, 1926
(6) The third Privy Council case on the point is that of Secretary of State of India v. Chellikani Rama Rao, AIR 1916, P.C. 21 and also in ILR 39 Mad 617. That was a case in respect of possession of lands which were islands formed in the bed of the sea near the mouth of the Godavari river. According to the law in Madras, such lands become Government properties. Before constituting them into a reserved forest, the Madras Forest Act V of 1882 requires that the Forest Settlement Officer should give a notice to the persons who claim any right or title to those properties. In pursuance of such a notice the respondents put in their objections contending that the lands had been possessed by them from time immemorial and that on that account they had become owners. This assertion was denied for the Crown.
Section 9 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Official Receiver Of East Godavari vs Chava Govindaraju And Anr. on 23 April, 1940
In Official Receiver of East Godavari v. Chava Govindarajy, AIR 1940 Mad 798 the suit was one for possession based on title. The plaintiff claimed to be an assignee of a mortgage decree. Respondent No. 2 and his sons were said to be the mortgagors. The plaintiff filed execution proceedings for sale and in Court auction he himself purchased the properties.