Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.81 seconds)Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Lakhu Motiram And Ors. vs Radhabai Mulchand Ramnarayan on 18 December, 1951
In Lakhu v. Radhabal, AIR 1952 Bom 438, Bhaga-tathy and Chainani, JJ., have, said :
Seshagiri Rao And Ors. vs Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 19 August, 1919
In Seshagiri v. Sreenivasa, AIR 1920 Mad 402, It was held by Seshagiri Iyer and Moore JJ., that if the sale is void, that question has to be agitated and appropriate relief sought under Section 47 and that Article 181 of the Limitation Act would apply and that a suit would be barred. In that case a suit was filed for declaration that an execution sale was void and for consequential reliefs. The High Court in appeal remanded the suit to the trial Court with a direction to treat the suit as a proceeding under Section 47 without deciding the question of limitation. The lower Court thereafter treating the suit as an application, dismissed it as barred by time under Article 166. It was in the course of disposing of the appeal from this order that the following observations were made: At p. 403 it is observed :
Rajagopala Ayyar Minor, By Guardian ... vs Ramanujachariar And Anr. on 6 November, 1923
In Rajagopala Aiyar v. Ramanujachariar, AIR 1924 Mad 431, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court has held that if the sale is void the judgment-debtor must seek his relief by an application under Section 47 and that a separate suit would be barred.
Nirode Kali Roy Choudhury And Anr. vs Rai Harendra Nath Choudhury And Anr. on 19 July, 1937
In Nirode Kali Roy v. Harendra Nath, AIR 1938 Cal 113, a Bench of the Calcutta High Court of which B.K. Mukherjea, J., was a member, considered this question. There, in a suit against A and B a decree was passed against A only. The properties of B were attached and B raised an objection to the attachment. On the objection being dismissed, he brought a suit under Order 21, Rule 63. It was contended by the decree-holder that Section 47 was a bar to the maintainability of the suit. It was held that although no decree was passed against B, the question raised in the suit related to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree between the parties within the meaning of Section 47 and that the only remedy was to file an application under Section 47 for declaring the sale to be void and that Article 181 would apply. The learned Judges therefore treated the suit as an application under Section 47 and granted the relief. In the course of his judgment B.K. Mukherjea, J., observed:
Dada Narayan Thakre vs Jaichand Nagorao And Anr. on 28 October, 1957
In Dada v. Jaichand, AIR 1958 Bom 278 Mudholker J., as he then was, dealt with this question and he made the following observation :
Bansi Sao And Anr. vs Debi Prasad And Ors. on 1 August, 1961
In Bansi Sao v. Devi Prasad, AIR 1961 Pat 508, Ramaswami C. J., and Untwalia J., have held :
Nanni Bai And Others vs Gita Bai on 14 April, 1958
So also is the following observation of the Supreme Court in Nani Bai v. Gita Bai, AIR 1958 SC 706 on which the appellants relied: