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

2017 Supreme(Bom) 2368

C.V.BHADANG
JAHANGIR @ JAWAHAR – Appellant
Versus
MAUREEN – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aditi Naik, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mrs. Anarkali Agni, Senior Advocate with Ms. Hetal Mody, Advocate

JUDGMENT

C.V. Bhadang, J.

The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.10.2005, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in Special Civil Suit No. 27/04/B. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC, for short), as being barred by limitation.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus:

That, now deceased-Jahangir Karanjia (the original plaintiff), filed the aforesaid suit against the respondent for declaration that the original plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property, more specifically described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The original plaintiff also sought declaration that the Certificate of Sale dated 30.06.1973 granted in Execution Case No. 24/1970, in favour of the respondent/defendant, is null and void and is therefore liable to be delivered and cancelled. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff.

3. The case made out in the plaint was that the suit property happens to be a





























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