Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 6 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Doraisami Serumadan And Anr. vs Nondisami Saluvan And Four Ors. on 18 December, 1912
5. The third point that the suit is not barred as regards the deceased brother's share must beheld to be precluded by the authority of the decision in Doraisami Serumadan v, Nondisami Saluvan (1912) I.L.R. 38 Mad.
Yellavajhalu Surayya vs Yellavajhalu Subbamma And Two Ors. on 11 April, 1919
118 : 25 M.L.J. 405 which has been followed in Surayya v. Subbamma (1927) 53 M.L.J. 667 see also Mahableshvar Krishnappa v. Ramachandra Mangesh (1913) I.L.R. 38 Bom. 94.
Section 7 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Arumugam Pillai And Ors. vs Panayadian Ambalam And Anr. on 29 October, 1920
See for instance Arumugham Pillai v. Panayadian Ambalam (1920) 40 M.L.J. 475, Madhugula Latchiah v. Pally Mukkalinga (1907) I.L.R. 30 Mad.
Tholeti Ramiah And Anr. vs Konala Brahmiah And Ors. on 21 February, 1930
118 : 25 M.L.J. 405 and of Venkatasubba Rao, J., in Ramiah v. Brahmiah (1930) 59 M.L.J. 196 at 198. These observations suggest that Article 44 is merely an illustration of the combined operation of Article 144 and Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act. They assume that even if Article 44 should be omitted the position would be the same by the combined operation of Article 144 and Section 6 and in this view they would control Art 44 by the principle recognised in Section 6, so that a minor may avail himself of whichever will give him a longer period. With great respect to the learned Judges, this argument runs counter to a number of decisions in this Court and ignores certain well-established rules underlying the Limitation Act. It has generally been recognised that the limitation Act draws a distinction between voidable transactions and void transactions and while a longer period is allowed for remedies arising out of void transactions a shorter period has been prescribed for all actions that seek to avoid voidable transactions. It has also been laid down that in the application of this rule, it makes no difference that there is also a prayer for possession included in the plaint. If this is the true principle underlying the enactment of Article 44, it will be scarcely right to regard it as merely an illustration of the combined operation of Article 144 and Section 6. I may also point out that Article 144 cannot be applicable to such cases at all, for at least two reasons: (1) by reason of the language of the third column, for in the case of guardian's alienations it cannot be predicated that the alienee's possession is adverse to the minor; and (2) by reason of the well estalished principle, that whenever there is a specific article applicable to a suit, a general article like Article 144 will be excluded. There are several decisions in this Court which have held the action barred under Article 44, though the suit itself had in fact been filed within twelve years of the alienation.
Appanna Prasada Panda vs Appanna Mahapatro And Ors. on 19 January, 1917
3. On the first point, he relies upon the observations in Appanna Prasada Panda v. Appanna Mahapatro (1917) 40 I.C. 145, Thirupathi Raju v. Venkata Raju (1916) 40 I.C. 695 and Kathaperumal Thevan v. Ramalinga Thevan (1914) 27 I.C. 695, where referring to the judgment of the Privy Council in Gharib-ullah v. Khalak Singh (1903) I.L.R. 25 All. 407 it has been pointed out that a minor's interest in an undivided Hindu family is not such an interest or property that a guardian can be appointed or predicated in respect of it. I must however observe that in both these cases there were other adult co-parceners and the legal guardianship of the minor co-parcener was therefore held to vest in the adult co-parcener. In the present case, there were no adult co-parceners at all.