Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.38 seconds)
C. Natrajan vs Ashim Bai & Anr on 11 October, 2007 cites

Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005

As against this, counsel for the respondents relied upon a later judgment of this Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. in respect of the proposition that Order VII Rule 11(d) was not applicable in a case where a question has to be decided on the basis of fact that the suit was barred by limitation. The point as to whether the words barred by law occurring in Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC would include the suit being barred by limitation was not specifically dealt with in either of these two judgments, cited above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 598 - A Pasayat - Full Document

S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964

Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. There is no evidence here when possession became adverse, if it at all did, and a mere suggestion in the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted possession for "several 12 years" or that the plaintiff had acquired "an absolute title" was not enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and the prayer clause is not a substitute for a plea. The cited cases need hardly be considered, because each case must be determined upon the allegations in the plaint in that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 382 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next