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

1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 125

HIDAYATULLAH, SEN
BABULAL NATHOOLAL – Appellant
Versus
ANNAPURNABAI W/O KISANLAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G B Badkas, R S Dabir, Advocates

JUDGMENT

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







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