Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.26 seconds)
K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St cites

V.C. Thani Chettiar And Anr. vs Dakshinamurthy Mudaliar And Ors. on 20 September, 1954

24.1 The next point involved is about the maintainability of the suit for partition vis-a-vis items 1 and 3. Here the defendant relied on the ratio in V.C.Thani Chettiar (Died) and another vs. Dakshinamurthy Mudaliar and others [(1955)68 L.W 166 (FB) (at page 173)], where this Court had held that limitation for filing a suit for partition by a purchaser of a fractional share of a coparcenary property will commence from the date of purchase.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Harnandrai Badridas vs Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad & Ors on 4 May, 1973

➢ Turning to the common law remedy of instituting a suit for recovery of property based on title, this is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It provides that the suit must be laid before the expiry of 12 years since the defendant's possession has become adverse to the title of the plaintiff. It in effect does not bar a suit, but it leaves it to the ability of the defendant to establish the non- maintainability of the suit with his pleading and proof of adverse possession. Divestiture of title by adverse possession cannot be presumed merely because the defendant was in possession of the property for more than twelve years either if he does not plead, or having pleaded, fails to prove nec vi, nec clam and nec precario vis-a-vis his possession for an uninterrupted twelve years. ➢ The difference between Articles 134 and 65 of the Limitation Act are not just confined to the period of limitation that they prescribe, but also on the point of their operation. While Article 134 operates right at the point when the auction purchaser invokes Order XXI Rule 95 CPC to obtain delivery, there is no such impediment when 15/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 a regular suit for possession is filed, since there is no period of limitation for instituting the suit as explained above. 12.1 The law as it stood prior to Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, provided twin options to the auction-purchaser: He could either seek delivery under Order XXI Rule 95 within one year, or alternatively can file a suit for recovery of possession. See: Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bagwati Prasad & Others [(1973)2 SCC 467]. The current pursuit is to understand if on the arrival of Explanation II(b) in the legislative scene, whether the equation is altered, and whether the judgements rendered post 1976 amendment to the CPC which retained the original idea of twin remedies (available to the auction-purchaser), have overlooked the express terms of Explanation II(b)?
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next