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

1994 Supreme(SC) 1199

K.RAMASWAMY, N.P.SINGH, N.VENKATACHALA
SHYAM SUNDER PRASADS – Appellant
Versus
RAJ PAL SINGH – Respondent


ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court at Patna in Second Appeal No. 262/90 dated 29-8-1993 dismissing the Second Appeal in limine. The appellant-plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 238/26 of 1962-65 for declaration of title to and possession of Plots Nos. 1093 and 1094 as owner and for possession of Plot No. 1095 as Ijradar. The trial court decreed the suit, the appellate court found that though the plaintiff had title and possession at one point of time but there is no definite date of dispossession or discontinuation of the plaint-schedule property. The plaintiff had failed to prove possession of the suit land within 12 years of the suit when the possession was discontinued. It is not known as to when he came into possession. The suit was, therefore, barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for short "the old Act". It was accordingly dismissed.

2. Article 142 of the First Schedule and First Division to the old Limitation Act, provides that "for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff, while in possession of the property, has been dispossessed or has discontinued the possession", the period of 12 years begin



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