Skip to content


Kadar HussaIn Vs. HussaIn Saheb and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad118
AppellantKadar Hussain
RespondentHussaIn Saheb and ors.
Cases ReferredSuryanna v. Durgi I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, schedule ii, article 12 (a)--dispossession. - 1. in the circumstances stated we think there can be no doubt that article 12 (a) of the second schedule of the limitation act cannot properly be applied to the suit brought by the plaintiff.2. whatever was the intention of the parties who took part in the execution sale, that transaction could not affect the title of the plaintiff, and therefore it was not necessary for him to have the sale set aside.3. we cannot agree with the decision in suryanna v. durgi i.l.r. 7 mad. 258 which was also a case of a sale in execution of a decree.[after the delivery of the above judgment the decree of the district court was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to he disposed of on the merits.]
Judgment:

1. In the circumstances stated we think there can be no doubt that Article 12 (a) of the second schedule of the Limitation Act cannot properly be applied to the suit brought by the plaintiff.

2. Whatever was the intention of the parties who took part in the execution sale, that transaction could not affect the title of the plaintiff, and therefore it was not necessary for him to have the sale set aside.

3. We cannot agree with the decision in Suryanna v. Durgi I.L.R. 7 Mad. 258 which was also a case of a sale in execution of a decree.

[After the delivery of the above judgment the decree of the District Court was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to he disposed of on the merits.]


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