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

1944 Supreme(SC) 15

VISCOUNT SANKEY, LORD THANKERTON, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR
BATEY KRISHNA – Appellant
Versus
PARSOTAM DAS – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant:T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitor for respondents: Harold Shephard.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 24 of 1943) from a decree of the High Court (April I, 1937), which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore (September 5, 1932) dismissing the plaintiffs (appellants) suit.

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the judicial Committee the suit out of which the appeal arose was brought to recover a sum of Rs. 45,765-6-3 as a charge against the properties specified in the plaint in the circumstances mentioned below. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, and by an order of the court, his son, the appellant before the Board, was brought on the record in his place. The sole question for decision was whether the suit was barred by limitation. The provision of the Indian Limitation Act (IX. of 1908) applicable was art. 132, which prescribed a period of " twelve years " for a suit " to enforce " payment of money charged upon immovable property," and time began to run " when the money sued for becomes due." The properties in the suit, numbering seven villages, belonged to one Musammat Baktawar Begum. On February 11, 1909, she mortgaged them for Rs. 5,000 to Syed Abid Husain. The money became payable by her on














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