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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 397

CORNISH
Dandu Sivaramaraju died Dandu Raghunatha Raju, Legal Representative of the deceased – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Collector – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Cornish, J.

1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff--appellants suit is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, in which case it is time barred, or by Article 120, in which case the suit will be in time.

2. The appellant was auction-purchaser at a Court-sale of certain items of property sold by defendants 5 to 10 in execution of a decree obtained by them in a Rent suit against defendants 3 and 4. The date of the sale was 25th September, 1918, and it was confirmed on 11th December, 1918. The purchase price was Rs. 2,525 which was duly deposited in Court. In the meantime a stranger in these proceedings had brought a suit O.S. No. 723 of 1918, for recovery of possession, alleging that in as much as the judgment-debtors had already sold the lands to him they had no saleable interest in the land, and that there were irregularities in the sale to the appellant. This suit was decreed on 15th December, 1919, the Court holding that there were irregularities in the conduct of sale sufficient to set it aside. A prohibitory order had been obtained against the Deputy Collector that he should not part with the purchase-money deposited by the appellant. But t

















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