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

1920 Supreme(Cal) 509

NAPIER, KRISHNAN
Arumugam Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Pandigam Ambalam – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Krishnan, J. - The main question argued in this second appeal is whether Article 44 of the Limitation Act applies to it or not. The plaint property originally belonged to the 1st defendant He executed a sale deed for it to his wife Irulayi, and the properly then became hers. The plaintiff is her only fan by the 1st defendant. She died some time ago and the lower Courts have held, and it is not disputed before us, that or her death the property passed to the plaintiff and he became solely entitled to it. In 1909 when the plaintiff was still a minor, his father, the 1st defendant, and his father's brother, one Palaniyandi now deceased, executed a sale deed, Exhibit I, to the 2nd defendant benami for the 4th defendant for the plaint property. In that deed the plaintiff is named as one of the vendors, the 1st defendant executing it on his behalf as his father and guardian; this is so expressly recited in the deed. The plea of limitation has reference to this deed, it being contended that the plaintiff cannot recover the property until the transfer by it is set aside and that as more than 3 years have elapsed since he has become a major, he is barred from doing so under Article

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