Skip to content


Basant Lal Vs. Chhidammi Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Property
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR35All149
AppellantBasant Lal
RespondentChhidammi Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
act no. ix of 1908 (indian limitation act), schedule i, articles 91 and 120 - limitation--suit for declaration that nominal lessee is not the beneficial lessee but merely benamidar for the plaintiff. - .....of the first schedule to the limitation act. the view taken by the subordinate judge is that the suit is one to cancel or set aside an instrument and that time began to run against the appellant more than three years before the suit was brought. on examining the plaint we find that the suit is not one to cancel or set aside an instrument. the appellant has asked for a declaration in effect that the first defendant whose name appears as lessee in a certain lease has no interest under the lease and that the person really interested under the lease is the appellant for whom the first defendant acted as benamidar. it seems to us that the suit is governed by article 120 and that the cause of action accrued to the appellant when his position as a lessee was challenged by the first defendant......
Judgment:

Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.

1. The suit of the appellant has been dismissed by the court below on the ground that it is barred by Article 91 of the first schedule to the Limitation Act. The view taken by the Subordinate Judge is that the suit is one to cancel or set aside an instrument and that time began to run against the appellant more than three years before the suit was brought. On examining the plaint we find that the suit is not one to cancel or set aside an instrument. The appellant has asked for a declaration in effect that the first defendant whose name appears as lessee in a certain lease has no interest under the lease and that the person really interested under the lease is the appellant for whom the first defendant acted as benamidar. It seems to us that the suit is governed by Article 120 and that the cause of action accrued to the appellant when his position as a lessee was challenged by the first defendant. We allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the court below and remand the case to that court to be disposed of according to law. Costs in this Court will be costs in the cause.


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