Skip to content


Narasimha Naidu Vs. Ramasami and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad478
AppellantNarasimha Naidu
RespondentRamasami and ors.
Cases ReferredParekh Ranchor v. Bai Vakhat I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, scheduled ii, article 12--suit to set aside court-sale--suit for land sold in execution as property of third parties. - .....7. mad. 258 in which it seems to have been held that a stranger to the decree whose property is sold in execution of it must bring his suit within the year. if it were necessary to decide the question, we should refer it to a full bench, for the decision seems to us doubtful and we are inclined to think that the reasoning in parekh ranchor v. bai vakhat i.l.r. 11 bom. 119 is more correct. a stranger whose property is sold behind his back without any authority does not need to have the sale set aside.2. there is, however, nothing to show that the sale was ever confirmed and therefore the point does not arise.3. the appeal is dismissed with costs.[1] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------article.....
Judgment:

1. We think it must be taken to be found that the property originally belonged to the plaintiffs' family and that it remained in their possession till 1884. It is true that there is no explicit finding on this latter point by the lower Appellate Court, but this objection is not taken in the memorandum of appeal to this Court, and even in the lower Appellate Court the contention raised in the fourth ground of appeal is consistent with the facts above stated. In 1881, in execution of a decree against some members of the plaintiffs' family, the property was sold and purchased by the defendant who now appeals, and it is contended that the suit falls under the 12th[1] Article of the Limitation Act, and is therefore barred by limitation. We are referred to Suryanna v. Durgi I.L.R. 7. Mad. 258 in which it seems to have been held that a stranger to the decree whose property is sold in execution of it must bring his suit within the year. If it were necessary to decide the question, we should refer it to a Full Bench, for the decision seems to us doubtful and we are inclined to think that the reasoning in Parekh Ranchor v. Bai Vakhat I.L.R. 11 Bom. 119 is more correct. A stranger whose property is sold behind his back without any authority does not need to have the sale set aside.

2. There is, however, nothing to show that the sale was ever confirmed and therefore the point does not arise.

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

[1]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 12:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Time from which period begins

Description of suit. limitation. to run

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To set aside any of the following One year.... When the sale is confirmed, or would

sales: otherwise have become final and con-

(a) sale in execution of a decree clusive had no such suit been brought.]

of a Civil Court;

(b) sale in pursuance of a decree

or order, of a Collector or

other officer of revenue;

(c) sale for arrears of Government

revenue, or for any demand

recoverable as such arrears;

(d) sale of a patni taluq sold for

current arrears of rent.

Explanation.--In this clause

'patni' includes any intermediate

tenure saleable for current arrears

of rent.


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