SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(SC) 227

SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI
Sakuru – Appellant
Versus
Tanaji – Respondent


Advocates:
J.RAMA CHANDRA RAO, K.RAM KUMAR, S.Markandaya, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER

Judgment

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.:- In this appeal filed by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment dated April 12, 1978 of a learned single Judge of the High Court, of Andhra Pradesh, the sole question arising for decision is whether the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked for condoning the delay in the filing of an appeal before the Collector under S. 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 -Act 21 of 1950 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The facts which have led up to the present controversy may now be briefly set out. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad declared the respondent-Tanaji to be the owner of an extent of 6 acres, 39 guntas comprised in Survey Nos. 289 and 290 of Hasnapur village under S. 38-E of the Act on the ground that he (the respondent) was a "protected tenant" Though an appeal lay to the Collector under S. 90 of the Act against the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer the appellant land holder did not prefer an appeal but, instead, filed a Writ Petition - W. P. No. 2064 of 1976 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the legality and correctness of t








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

[All cases in the list]: Every entry references Sakuru v. Tanaji (AIR 1985 SC 1279, (1985) 3 SCC 590) positively, either directly citing it as authority, relying on it, reiterating its holding, or approving its view. Examples include:

Ismail Bibi VS Five Gori Thaikka Wakf At Vridhachalam By Its President S. K. Syed Ali - 1987 0 Supreme(Mad) 29: "In view of the decision Sakuru v.... In support of these contentions, he would straightway refer to the decision in Sakuru v."

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD VS RAM NARAYAN TEKCHAND - 1988 0 Supreme(Cal) 160: Cites Tanaji [AIR 1985 SC 1279] as authority that Limitation Act applies only to courts.

Jairnangal Ltd. Avantee Hotel And Another VS State Of Bihar - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 96: Cites (1985) 3 SCC 590 : (AIR 1985 SC 1279) to hold provisions apply only to special/local cases in courts.

MOHAMMAD QURESH VS ROOPA FOTEDAR - 1989 0 Supreme(Del) 454: "this view was again reiterated in Sakuru v. Tanaji."

Parvati VS State of U. P. - 1991 0 Supreme(All) 1253: "In Sakuru Vs. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279, relying upon the 3 earlier decisions, it is held that..."

Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing cum Processing Service Society - 1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 45: "Emphasized that the Limitation Act applies only to court proceedings. Tanaji (AIR 1985 SC 1279) it was held..."

Santana Rodrigues VS Francisco Xavier - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 987: "A two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Sakuru v. Tanaji... This Court in Sakuru case... The following was further laid down..."

Numerous others (e.g., SANTOKH SINGH VS STATE OF H. P. - 1995 0 Supreme(HP) 51, SUKHDEO VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1991 0 Supreme(All) 698, State of Jharkhand VS Shivam Coke Industries, Dhanbad, etc. - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 757, GANESAN REP BY ITS POWER AGENT G. RUKMANI GANESAN VS COMMISSIONER, THE TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BOARD - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 530) explicitly rely on, refer to, or observe its holdings without criticism.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top