Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006
17. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported
as Prem Singh vs. Birbal 2006 (5) SCC 353 has
held that Article 59 applies to voidable
transactions and not void transactions.
Sh. Mukhinder Singh (Deceased) Through ... vs Sh. Gurbux Singh & Ors. on 2 February, 2012
When we read
the plaint, no manner of doubt is left that in fact,
the sale deed is also being challenged as being
fraud and collusive. Since no specific prayer
seeking cancellation of the sale deed is asked
for, ownership will continue in law to be vested
with the defendant no.1/respondent no.1, and if
ownership continues to be vested with defendant
no.1/respondent no.1, surely the right to
possession fails. I therefore hold that the subject
suit for possession was not maintainable
because the right to seek cancellation of the sale
deed had become barred by time at the
maximum in around the year 1965/1966, and
therefore, no relief can be granted in a suit filed
in the year 1975 for cancellation of the sale
deed. At the cost of repetition it is stated that if
the sale deed stands, ownership of the defendant
no.1/respondent no.1 stands, and if the
ownership of the defendant no.1/respondent no.1
stands, appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to
the reliefs of possession and mesne profits as
claimed with respect to the suit property..."
(underline added)
From the abovequoted observations as made in the
judgment Raj Kumari (supra) and Mukhinder Singh (supra), it is
clear that if there are documents w.r.t the suit property in existence
then without seeking the relief of cancellation of those documents, the
suit for mere possession is not maintainable.
Raj Kumari Garg vs S.M. Ezaz & Ors. on 13 August, 2012
When we read
the plaint, no manner of doubt is left that in fact,
the sale deed is also being challenged as being
fraud and collusive. Since no specific prayer
seeking cancellation of the sale deed is asked
for, ownership will continue in law to be vested
with the defendant no.1/respondent no.1, and if
ownership continues to be vested with defendant
no.1/respondent no.1, surely the right to
possession fails. I therefore hold that the subject
suit for possession was not maintainable
because the right to seek cancellation of the sale
deed had become barred by time at the
maximum in around the year 1965/1966, and
therefore, no relief can be granted in a suit filed
in the year 1975 for cancellation of the sale
deed. At the cost of repetition it is stated that if
the sale deed stands, ownership of the defendant
no.1/respondent no.1 stands, and if the
ownership of the defendant no.1/respondent no.1
stands, appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to
the reliefs of possession and mesne profits as
claimed with respect to the suit property..."
(underline added)
From the abovequoted observations as made in the
judgment Raj Kumari (supra) and Mukhinder Singh (supra), it is
clear that if there are documents w.r.t the suit property in existence
then without seeking the relief of cancellation of those documents, the
suit for mere possession is not maintainable.