Skip to content


Aiyyam Chetti and ors. Vs. Poongavanam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ464
AppellantAiyyam Chetti and ors.
RespondentPoongavanam
Excerpt:
- .....whose possession was resisted by the present plaintiff put in a petition under section 335, civil procedure code, and obtained an order for delivery of possession to him. the plaintiff then brought this suit against him within the time limited by article 11 of the 2nd schedule of the limitation act. in his written statement, the 1st defendant objected that he was only a benamidar - a statement he had made previously in his petition under section 335, civil procedure code; and thereupon the court ordered defendants no. 2 and 3 as the real owners to be made parties, and they were so made parties. this was more than one year after the date of the order under section 335, civil procedure code, and it is, therefore, contended that the suit is barred.2. in our opinion, the suit, which.....
Judgment:

1. The first objection that is taken is that the suit is barred. The auction-purchaser whose possession was resisted by the present plaintiff put in a petition under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code, and obtained an order for delivery of possession to him. The plaintiff then brought this suit against him within the time limited by Article 11 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act. In his written statement, the 1st defendant objected that he was only a benamidar - a statement he had made previously in his petition under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code; and thereupon the Court ordered defendants No. 2 and 3 as the real owners to be made parties, and they were so made parties. This was more than one year after the date of the order under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code, and it is, therefore, contended that the suit is barred.

2. In our opinion, the suit, which the section provides; for, by the party against whom an order has been made under the section is a suit against the party or parties in whose favour the order has been made, and Article 11 only applies to suits against such parties. The objection is, therefore, untenable. As regards the merits there is evidence to support the finding. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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