Skip to content


Shida Ali Vs. Phullo and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Limitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR35All185
AppellantShida Ali
RespondentPhullo and anr.
Excerpt:
act ix of 1908 (indian limitation act), schedule i, article 132 - limitation--malikana--suit for malikana--decree asked for against property charged. - - 281-12-5. parties will pay and receive costs in proportion to failure and success in both courts......the defendants respondents have filed objections, and it is contended on their behalf that the suit is barred by time. reliance is placed on kallar roy v. ganga pershad singh (1905) i.l.r., 33 calc., 998. in that case the learned judges refused to apply the provisions of article 132 of the limitation act, the reason being that in the particular case before them the plaintiff had not asked for a decree against the property chargeable with malikana. in the present case the plaintiff asked for a decree against the property, although the court below has not granted it. the explanation to article 132 leaves no doubt as to the period of limitation applicable to suits of this nature. we allow the appeal so far that in lieu of the decree for rs. 57-3-4 passed by the court below we substitute a.....
Judgment:

Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit to recover eleven years' arrears of malikana. The plaintiff asked for a decree against the property, on which, he says, the malikana allowance was chargeable. The court below has given him a decree for Rs. 57-3-4 only. In appeal to this Court it is pointed out, on behalf of the appellant, that the court below, in making its calculation, has made an obvious mistake and that the sum due to the plaintiff appellant on the basis adopted by the court below should be Rs. 262-12-5, to which should be added Rs. 18-0-0 on account of bhent. The defendants respondents have filed objections, and it is contended on their behalf that the suit is barred by time. Reliance is placed on Kallar Roy v. Ganga Pershad Singh (1905) I.L.R., 33 Calc., 998. In that case the learned Judges refused to apply the provisions of Article 132 of the Limitation Act, the reason being that in the particular case before them the plaintiff had not asked for a decree against the property chargeable with malikana. In the present case the plaintiff asked for a decree against the property, although the court below has not granted it. The explanation to Article 132 leaves no doubt as to the period of limitation applicable to suits of this nature. We allow the appeal so far that in lieu of the decree for Rs. 57-3-4 passed by the court below we substitute a decree for Rs. 281-12-5. Parties will pay and receive costs in proportion to failure and success in both courts. The cross objections are dismissed with costs.


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