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

1919 Supreme(All) 229

P. C. BANERJI, RAFIQUE
Musammat Rukmina Kuar – Appellant
Versus
Sheo Dat Rai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. We agree with the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court. The decree was one for delivery of possession passed on the 22nd of January 1894 on the basis of an arbitration award. It provided that the plaintiffs decree holders were to get possession upon payment of Rs. 750 to the defendants in any year in the month of Jeth. The money was deposited on the 15th of June 1915 and the application for execution was made on the 29th of June 1916. It was contended that the application was time barred. The learned Judge of this Court has held that the application was not barred by limitation. Article 182 of the Limitation Act applies to cases in which the decree is capable of execution on the date on which it was passed, except in the circumstances mentioned in some of the special clauses to the Article. The decree in this case was not capable of execution on the date on which it was passed. Therefore, if Article 181 is applicable to the present case, limitation would run from the date on which the right to apply accrued. It is clear that the right to apply did not accrue until Rs. 750 was paid and the right to pay the money was given to the decree-holders in the month of Jet

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