Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
13) To consider an application for rejection of the plaint under
Order 7, Rule 11 CPC especially under clause (d), the averments
made in the plaint are only to be looked in. To elaborate
further, we may refer to and rely upon the case of Popat and
Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association,
reported in (2005) 7 SCC 510, wherein it has been held as
follows:-
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Narne Rama Murthy vs Ravula Somasundaram & Ors on 17 August, 2005
34. When limitation is a pure question of
law and from the pleadings itself it becomes
apparent that a suit is barred by limitation,
then, of course, it is the duty of the court to
decide limitation at the outset even in the
absence of a plea. However, in cases like the
one on hand, where the question of
limitation is a mixed question of fact and
law and the suit does not appear to be
barred by limitation on the face of it, then
the facts necessary to prove limitation must
be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved.
(see Narne Rama Murthy vs. Ravula
Somasundaram, 2005 (6) SCC 614).
Pawan Kumar vs Babulal Since Deceased Through Lrs on 2 April, 2019
14) It would be appropriate to refer to and relied upon the
case of Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal since deceased through Legal
Representative and others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 367. It has
been held therein as follows:
Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar on 22 November, 2021
18) The registered document itself suggests that the same is
without consideration which, prima-facie, seems dubious.
Therefore, it would be apt on the part of the Court below, to
lead the specific evidence as to under what circumstance, so
called, sale deed without consideration came to be executed.
More particularly, the Supreme Court in the case of Kewal
Krishan v Rajesh Kumar & Ors, considering the Section 54 of the
Transfer of property Act held thus:-
1