Skip to content


Munna Lal Vs. Mt. Nanhi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All756a; 103Ind.Cas.385
AppellantMunna Lal
RespondentMt. Nanhi
Excerpt:
- - 123. the case turns upon its own circumstances like most of these cases. there had been a previous deed of gift, but the deed of transfer recited that it was a nullity, which meant that the vendor was able to give a good title it has turned out that he was not. so that up to that point, although he was experiencing a difficulty there had been no complete failure. but his success was succeeded by failure and he lost the suit on appeal, and found himself as a result unable to eject the tenant and to get possession. if article 97 applies as we think it does, for the reasons give by the privy council, the three years began to run at the date of the failure. we are unable to say as a matter of law that there was a failure earlier than the failure of his suit......purchased some property by means of a transfer. there had been a previous deed of gift, but the deed of transfer recited that it was a nullity, which meant that the vendor was able to give a good title it has turned out that he was not. the plaintiff never got possession. he was delaying in suing, and when he did sue, he succeeded. so that up to that point, although he was experiencing a difficulty there had been no complete failure. but his success was succeeded by failure and he lost the suit on appeal, and found himself as a result unable to eject the tenant and to get possession. if article 97 applies as we think it does, for the reasons give by the privy council, the three years began to run at the date of the failure. we are unable to say as a matter of law that there was a.....
Judgment:

1. We think that this appeal must succeed. The learned Judge was right in saying in disposing of the appeal that it was rather a ticklish question. He apparently had to undergo quite a fusillade of rulings. Mr. Sapru has referred us to all the cases that really help him. In short we find it impossible to get over the language of the Act as expounded by the Privy Council in the case of Hanuman Kamat v. Hanuman Mandiir [1892] 19 Cal. 123. The case turns upon its own circumstances like most of these cases. The plaintiff purchased some property by means of a transfer. There had been a previous deed of gift, but the deed of transfer recited that it was a nullity, which meant that the vendor was able to give a good title It has turned out that he was not. The plaintiff never got possession. He was delaying in suing, and when he did sue, he succeeded. So that up to that point, although he was experiencing a difficulty there had been no complete failure. But his success was succeeded by failure and he lost the suit on appeal, and found himself as a result unable to eject the tenant and to get possession. If Article 97 applies as we think it does, for the reasons give by the Privy Council, the three years began to run at the date of the failure. We are unable to say as a matter of law that there was a failure earlier than the failure of his suit. In that view the present suit has been brought within time. The appeal must be allowed and the case must be remitted to the lower appellate Court to be farther remitted to the trial Court so that the remaining issues may be disposed of according to law. The plaintiff must have the costs of this appeal.


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