Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)
Mussoorie Dehradun Development ... vs Lt. General R.K. Jasbir (Retired) And ... on 17 April, 2026
cites
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
L.C. Hanumanthappa (Since ... vs H.B.Shivakumar on 26 August, 2015
We have culled out the
main prayers made in the suit hereinabove which
clearly indicate that it is a suit not only for declaration
but the plaintiffs also prayed for possession of the suit
land. The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the
basis of title is 12 years and, therefore, the suit is
within limitation. Merely because one of the reliefs
sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer
limitation of 12 years is lost. Reliance placed by the
learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of
this Court in L.C. Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar
38
2026:UHC:2831
[L.C. Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar, (2016) 1
SCC 332 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 310] is wholly misplaced.
That judgment has no applicability since that case was
admittedly only a suit for declaration and not a suit for
both declaration and possession. In a suit filed for
possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove
his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner
of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title
cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over
the land. However, the main relief is of possession and,
therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. This Article deals with a suit for
possession of immovable property or any interest
therein based on title and the limitation is 12 years from
the date when possession of the land becomes adverse
to the plaintiff. In the instant case, even if the case of
the defendants is taken at the highest, the possession
of the defendants became adverse to the plaintiffs only
on 19-8-1978 when possession was handed over to the
defendants. Therefore, there is no merit in this
contention of the appellants."
The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi(D) Tr.Lrs. on 27 September, 2022
He has further
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan (supra), to
contend that the allottees were necessary parties and, in
their absence, the judgments of the trial court and the
first appellate court cannot be sustained.
Sopanrao vs Syed Mehmood . on 3 July, 2019
85. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents
has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sopanrao and
Another vs. Syed Mehmood and Others, reported in
(2019) 7 SCC 76, particularly paragraph 9 thereof, to
contend that the case of the plaintiffs-respondents is
squarely covered by the said judgment, which is
extracted herein below:-