JAYANT NATH
Razia Begum – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
Jayant Nath, J.
1. This is an application filed by defendant No. 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit as barred by law.
2. It is the contention of the applicant that the present suit is hit by Article 56 of Schedule 1 read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act. He submits that the documents under challenge in the suit are required to be challenged within three years from the date of its execution. Hence, it is stated that the suit for cancellation of the two documents is hopelessly barred by limitation on the face of it and cannot be entertained.
3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration declaring letter dated 20.03.1993 by which possession of Flat No. 4115, C-4, FF, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was handed over by defendant No. 1-DDA to defendant No. 2 as illegal, null and void, a decree of possession for the said flat against the defendants and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants pertaining to the said flat.
4. The brief facts which have led to the filing of the present suit as stated in the plaint are that a self-financing scheme was floated by defendant No. 1 in 1982. The plaintiff got herself registe
N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors. v. Mariyamma (dead) and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2897
Sannidhi Ratnavathi v. Arava Narsimhamurthy and Anr. AIR 2004 AP 29
C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 808
Indian City Properties Ltd. Vs. Vimla Singh 198(2013) DLT 432
Inspiration Clothes & U vs. Collby International Ltd.
Khatri Hotels Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.