Skip to content


Mahomed Abbas Ali Khan Vs. Sahu Gokul Chand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All52
AppellantMahomed Abbas Ali Khan
RespondentSahu Gokul Chand and ors.
Excerpt:
.....cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - the plaint, as framed, does not disclose at all clearly the nature of the suit. the suit is clearly barred by time and the appeal must succeed......in execution of a prior mortgage decree and purchased by the plaintiff-respondent. rs. 67-8 was paid by defendants 1 to 4 to him as the balance of the rent due for the year 1325 fasli. on the 30th of april, 1921, he brought the present suit against all the defendants to recover the rs. 132-8 paid to the present appellant with interest. the plaint, as framed, does not disclose at all clearly the nature of the suit. the first court held that the claim was barred by limitation and it dismissed the suit. the lower appellate court, however, has found that the cause of action did not arise till the end of the fasli year 1325, and that, therefore, the suit was within time.3. the only point taken in appeal is that of limitation, and it is contended that time must run from the date of payment.....
Judgment:

Neave, J.

1. The defendant-appellant, Muhammad Abbas Ali Khan purchased certain land at an auction sale in execution of a mortgage decree. On the 19th of June, 1917, he leased this property td the other four defendants for one year at a rental of Rs. 200. Out of this Rs. 100 was paid to him on the same day and apparently Rs. 32-8 a few days later.

2. On the 3rd of July, 1917, the same land was sold in execution of a prior mortgage decree and purchased by the plaintiff-respondent. Rs. 67-8 was paid by defendants 1 to 4 to him as the balance of the rent due for the year 1325 Fasli. On the 30th of April, 1921, he brought the present suit against all the defendants to recover the Rs. 132-8 paid to the present appellant with interest. The plaint, as framed, does not disclose at all clearly the nature of the suit. The first Court held that the claim was barred by limitation and it dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court, however, has found that the cause of action did not arise till the end of the Fasli year 1325, and that, therefore, the suit was within time.

3. The only point taken in appeal is that of limitation, and it is contended that time must run from the date of payment of the Rs. 132-8 to the appellant. The only Article, which appears to apply to the case is Article 109:

For the profits of immovable property belonging to the plaintiff which has been wrongfully received by the defendant.

4. Under this Article the period of limitation begins to run when the profits are received. The suit is clearly barred by time and the appeal must succeed. The order of the Court below is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs in all Courts including fees in this Court on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //