REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SABDAR MEAN AND SABDAR ALIKHAN Appellant

V/S

JADU GOALA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SYED ANWRUDDIN V. ABDUL RAHMAN [REFERRED TO]
UMA PRASAD V. LAKHESWAR [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAN V. RANJITHAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
DAYARAM V. DEORAS [REFERRED TO]
JANGBAHADUR SINGH V. THITHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TAN SIT SHAN V. U PO NYUN [REFERRED TO]
PREMESWAR DAS V. MADHAB CHAHDRA [REFERRED TO]
EASTERN FOOD PRODUCTS V. RABIA DUSAD [REFERRED TO]
SHANTABAI V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEO V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
KASHIPRASAD V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHAND V. GORDHAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
BHOONDO V. TUTETOO [REFERRED TO]
HIRACHAND V. BASHEERUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
TROJAN AND COMPANY VS. RM N N NAGAPPA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LIMITED VS. R N KAPOOR [REFERRED TO]
KESAR SINGH VS. BALWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHEVALIER I I IYYAPPAN VS. DHARMODAYAM CO TRICHUR [REFERRED TO]
MURTI DUSADHIN VS. MOHAMMAD MIR KHAN [REFERRED TO]
GURBINDER SINGH VS. LAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
B M LALL DEAD R N DUTTA VS. DUNLOP RUBBER CO INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. K C ALEXANDER [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI MANZOOR ALI KHAN OTHERS VS. SUKHBASI LAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE VS. ARAVINDAN KUNJU PANICKER [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEV DAULATA MAHADIK VS. GOVINDRAO BALWANTRAO [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF REVENUE VS. A M ANSARI [REFERRED TO]
RAJ RANI VS. KAILASH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
GAYA PARSHAD DIKSHIT VS. NIRMAL CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH PANDA VS. GADADHAR PANDA [REFERRED TO]
BAIDYANATH DUTTA VS. RADHESHYAM DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL RECEIVER OF EAST GODAVARI VS. CHAVA GOVINDARAJU [REFERRED TO]
ALAGIRI CHETTY VS. MUTHUSWAMI CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
ADHIKARIMAYUM BRAJMOHAN SARMA VS. HEIKRUJAM TOMBI SINGH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BEHARI LAL AND ORS VS. NARAIN DAS AND ANR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hard nut to crack in this appeal is whether the suit at hand was barred by limitation. The question of limitation alone will decide the fate of this appeal.

(2.) To decide the above controversy, it would be enough if broad facts of the case are noted. There are that the plaintiff-appellant purchased the suit land measuring 10 lechas from one Khairat for Rs. 1,500.00 by a registered deed of sale dated 1-11-46. The respondent was admittedly in possession of the suit land at the time of the purchase of the same by the appellant. This possession of the respondent was, however, as a tenant according to the appellant. A suit for ejectment was filed sometime in 1960 for evicting the respondent. As title of the appellant was denied in that suit, the same was withdrawn and the present suit was instituted in 1962 seeking possession of the suit land on declaration of title of the plaintiff.

(3.) Various pleas were advanced by the defendant. We are only concerned in the present-proceeding with the plea relating to limitation. In para 4 of the written statement, it was averred that the plaintiff's claim was barred by article 142 of the Limitation Act since the suit land was not in possession of the plaintiff for more than 12 years before filing of the suit. It may be pointed out here that in the translation of the relevant sentence in para 4 of the written statement as incorporated in the paper book there is some mistake in this regard. It was also stated in para 8 of the written statement that even if the plaintiff had any title the suit land he had lost the same as the defendant had been adversely possessing the land for about 40 years by raising permanent structure.

Click here to view full judgment.

SABDAR MEAN AND SABDAR ALIKHAN Vs. JADU GOALA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address