HIDAYATULLAH, SEN
BABULAL NATHOOLAL – Appellant
Versus
ANNAPURNABAI W/O KISANLAL – Respondent
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal' against the decision of Mudholkar J. The point that arises for consideration is simple. The Respondent's husband was a decree-holder in execution of whose decree the house in the case was sold and the sale became absolute in favour of the Respondent's husband on 14-2-1940. The Respondent made an application on 12-11-1941 for possession of the house. The application was not accompanied by the certificate contemplated by Order 21, Rule 94, Code of Civil Procedure, and it appears that no such certificate had been obtained. On 8-4-1943, the Respondent applied for the certificate. That was more than three years after the sale became absolute. The contention of the judgment-debtors in this appeal is that the Respondent not being in possession of a certificate was incompetent to apply for possession regard being had, to the words of Order 21, Rules 94 and 95 and by the time she obtained the certificate the period of limitation had expired. They say that, the application ought, therefore, to have been dismissed.
2. Article 180, Limitation Act, by which this matter is governed provides as follows: 180. By a purchaser of 3 years. When the sale immov
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.