Back
SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI
A. Valliammai – Appellant
Versus
K. P. Murali – Respondent
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023.
1. I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023, for permission to take on record additional evidence in the nature of documents, are not opposed. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023 are allowed. The documents are taken on record. S. Nos. 2 – 12 in I.A. No. 1 of 2017 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-1– S-111[Exhibit S-1 – a true copy of the judgment dated 23.12.1992 passed by the district munsif court in O.S. No. 508 of 1991; Exhibit S-2 – a true copy of the lawyer's notice dated 11.07.1994; Exhibit S-3 – a true copy of the rejoinder notice dated 13.07.1994; Exhibit S-4 – a true copy of the judgment dated 12.06.2002 passed by the district munsif court in O.S. No. 1164 of 1994; Exhibit S-5 – a true copy of the deposition of PW-1 – plaintiff – Duraisamy, in O.S. No. 21 of 2004 dated 05.07.2004; Exhibit S-6 – a true copy of the deposition of the DW-1 – first defendant – K. Sriram in O.S. No. 21 of 2004 dated 07.09.2006; Exhibit S-7 – a true copy of the deposition of DW-2 – second defendant – Valliammai, in O.S. N
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. Both entries appear to be standalone legal principles or observations without any indication of subsequent negative treatment or judicial disapproval based on the provided information.
[Followed / Affirmed / Good Law]
No cases explicitly marked as followed, affirmed, or recognized as good law. The first case provides a legal interpretation regarding the meaning of “date fixed” in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, which appears to be a settled point of law. The second case discusses equitable principles related to statutory compliance and limitation, which may be considered consistent with existing legal doctrine, but there is no explicit indication of judicial treatment.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
The first case clarifies a point about the interpretation of “date fixed,” which may be cited as a legal clarification or interpretation rather than a case that has been distinguished or overruled.
The second case discusses a principle that a vendor cannot take advantage of his own wrong in not complying with statutory provisions, which may be a principle that has been cited or distinguished in other cases, but no such treatment is indicated here.
Both cases lack explicit treatment indicators such as “overruled,” “reversed,” “criticized,” or “questioned.” Therefore, their current legal standing remains unclear based solely on this list. They could be good law or may have been subsequently overruled or distinguished, but no such information is provided.
In summary, based solely on the provided case law list, there are no cases identified as bad law or explicitly overruled. The treatment of these cases appears neutral and unambiguous from the given data, but without additional context or subsequent judicial treatment, their current legal standing cannot be definitively categorized beyond this.
**Source :** S. Brahmanand VS K. R. Muthugopal (D) - Supreme Court Panchanan Dhara VS Monmatha Nath Maity (dead) thr. L. Rs. - Supreme Court
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
