Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Shri Ambadas Damodar Umekar vs Hirubai Wd/O Shriram Sadar And Another on 14 December, 2018 cites

Foreshore Co-Operative Housing ... vs Shri Praveen D. Desai And Ors. on 6 May, 2004

10] Smt. S.P. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another v. P. Neeradha Reddy and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 331, Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (dead) through legal representatives and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 412 and Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill reported in (1982) 3 SCC 487. In P.V. Guru Raj Reddy the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint is wholly immaterial and plaint can be rejected only if the averments do not disclose a cause of action or on reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law. Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited considered the ambit and scope of section 9-A of the C.P.C., which was then in force in the State of Maharashtra. The specific question which fell for consideration was whether the court shall be guided by the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. or section 9-A in the matter of deciding the objection concerning the ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 07:47:59 ::: 10 sa52.17.J.odt bar of limitation. In Roop Lal Sathi the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that part of the plaint cannot be rejected and the plaint as a whole must be rejected if no cause of action is disclosed. The decisions cited do not take the case of the plaintiff any further. The question which falls for consideration in the present case is whether a holistic reading of the plaint shows that the suit claim is barred by limitation. The issue is not whether limitation is a mixed question of fact or law. The suit claim is clearly founded on the sale-deed dated 16.01.1965 and the averment that the loan was repaid and reconveyance assured. It is the case of the plaintiff herself that her husband executed the nominal document as security and repaid the entire loan during his life time and was assured reconveyance. As observed supra, since the limitation was triggered during the life time of the deceased husband of the plaintiff, it was necessary for the plaintiff to state the relevant dates. This disclosure is not made nor is relief reconveyance sought. On the other hand, the plaintiff avers that the mutation would furnish fresh cause of action, which cannot be countenanced.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 121 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Roop Lal Sathi vs Nachhattar Singh on 2 November, 1982

10] Smt. S.P. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another v. P. Neeradha Reddy and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 331, Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (dead) through legal representatives and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 412 and Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill reported in (1982) 3 SCC 487. In P.V. Guru Raj Reddy the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint is wholly immaterial and plaint can be rejected only if the averments do not disclose a cause of action or on reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law. Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited considered the ambit and scope of section 9-A of the C.P.C., which was then in force in the State of Maharashtra. The specific question which fell for consideration was whether the court shall be guided by the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. or section 9-A in the matter of deciding the objection concerning the ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 07:47:59 ::: 10 sa52.17.J.odt bar of limitation. In Roop Lal Sathi the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that part of the plaint cannot be rejected and the plaint as a whole must be rejected if no cause of action is disclosed. The decisions cited do not take the case of the plaintiff any further. The question which falls for consideration in the present case is whether a holistic reading of the plaint shows that the suit claim is barred by limitation. The issue is not whether limitation is a mixed question of fact or law. The suit claim is clearly founded on the sale-deed dated 16.01.1965 and the averment that the loan was repaid and reconveyance assured. It is the case of the plaintiff herself that her husband executed the nominal document as security and repaid the entire loan during his life time and was assured reconveyance. As observed supra, since the limitation was triggered during the life time of the deceased husband of the plaintiff, it was necessary for the plaintiff to state the relevant dates. This disclosure is not made nor is relief reconveyance sought. On the other hand, the plaintiff avers that the mutation would furnish fresh cause of action, which cannot be countenanced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 208 - A P Sen - Full Document
1