Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)
Suresh Goel & Ors vs . G.S. Raghav (Counter Claim) on 14 May, 2013 cites

Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004

15. During the course of the arguments, a plea was also taken by the respondent/original plaintiff in respect of the suit being barred by limtation as the period of twelve years for the purpose of the adverse possession were argued to commence from the date of hostile assertion of the title which in present case has been argued to commence from 1st week of October 2011 when the original plaintiff/present respondent purchased the suit property and the counter­claim has been argued to be pre­mature. On the other hand, the Ld counsel for the counter­ claimant has argued that the plaintiff as defined in Section 2(i) of the Limitation Act inter alia includes any person through whom the plaintiff derives his right to sue. Hence the period of limitation has been argued to have commenced in November 2011 and the counter claim is claimed to be maintainable. The plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of law and fact as well as the averments which have to be pleaded and established to establish the case of adverse possession and the same has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India & Anr cited as 2004 (10) SCC 779 as well as Balsariya Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Hanuman Civil Suit No.131/12 Suresh Goel & Ors. Vs. G.S. Raghav (Counter claim) Page No.8 of 9 Sewa Trust cited as (2006) 5 SCC 658. Thus at this stage from the counter claim itself it cannot be said that the counter claim is barred by the law of limitation and it is for the counter claimant to prove that it is within the period of limitation on the basis of averments made in the counter claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

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

9. It is a settled preposition of law that while considering an application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC it has to be seen whether a cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusionary has been stated and if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be invoked and if clever drafting has created an illusion of cause of action it should be nipped in the bud of first hearing. However, there cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversion of the language of the various paragraphs in the plaint and plaint should be taken as a whole. The legal proposition has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank Of India Staff Association cited as (2005) 7 SCC 510 and relied upon by the counter claimant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 598 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968

16. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantiben Prahaladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak cited as 2004 (3) SCC 376 relied upon by counter claimant in respect of the date of the commencement of the period of limitation and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nair Service Society v. K.C. Alexander cited as AIR 1968 SC 1165 are not relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the present application at this stage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 390 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Vasantiben P. Nayak & Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak & Ors on 9 March, 2004

16. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantiben Prahaladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak cited as 2004 (3) SCC 376 relied upon by counter claimant in respect of the date of the commencement of the period of limitation and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nair Service Society v. K.C. Alexander cited as AIR 1968 SC 1165 are not relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the present application at this stage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 114 - Full Document
1   2 Next