IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
S Aiyar, Moore
Ramaswami Aiyar And Ors.
Versus
Abdul Aziz Saib And Ors.
Decided On : 25 January, 1916
LIMITATION ACT - APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION - The court followed the decision that an application for possession by a decree-holder-purchaser is not an application to execute the decree. Article 182 of the Limitation Act does not apply, and the saving of limitation by steps taken in aid of execution does not arise. Article 180 of the new Limitation Act expressly applies to such an application.
1. We think that we ought to follow the considered decision in Sultan Sahib Marakayar v. Chidambaram Chettiar 1 Ind. Cas. 998; 32 M. 136; 19 M.L.J. 224; 4 M.L.T. 350, which held that an application for possession by a decree-holder-purchaser is not an application to execute the decree. Article 182 of the Limitation Act, therefore, cannot apply and the question of the saving of limitation by steps taken in aid of execution does not arise in respect of such applications. Further, Article 180 of the new Limitation Act expressly applies to such an application and no other Article could, therefore, be applied.
2. Applying Article 180 the present application, made 6 years after the Court-auction-sale had become absolute, was rightly dismissed by the lower Court as barred.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
AI
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.