Skip to content


Madhava Gowdu Alias Dama Gowdu Vs. Sisinti Lokanatha Patro and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.314
AppellantMadhava Gowdu Alias Dama Gowdu
RespondentSisinti Lokanatha Patro and ors.
Cases ReferredRajali v. The Secretary of State
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, articles 142, 144, 149 - puttah-holder from government--suit for possession by--whether suit on behalf of secretary of state--period of limitation--adverse possession. - - in so holding the district judge is clearly wrong. 3. as the question of limitation was not clearly taken in the first court the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence on the point......judge appears to hold that even if the defendants and their predecessor-in-title had been in adverse possession of the suit lands for 12 years but for less than 60 years before the plaintiff obtained puttah the plaintiff's suit would not be barred. in so holding the district judge is clearly wrong. the plaintiff's suit not being a suit by or on behalf of the secretary of state, article 149 of the second schedule of the limitation act does not apply-vide kuthaa-perumal rajali v. the secretary of state for india 30 m.k 245 and the cases therein cited. the suit must fall under either article 142 or 144. if the former article applies the plaintiff must prove that he or the government through whom he claims was in possession within 12 years before suit. if article 144 applies then the.....
Judgment:

1. The District Judge appears to hold that even if the defendants and their predecessor-in-title had been in adverse possession of the suit lands for 12 years but for less than 60 years before the plaintiff obtained puttah the plaintiff's suit would not be barred. In so holding the District Judge is clearly wrong. The plaintiff's suit not being a suit by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, article 149 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act does not apply-Vide Kuthaa-perumal Rajali v. The Secretary of State for India 30 M.k 245 and the cases therein cited. The suit must fall under either article 142 or 144. If the former article applies the plaintiff must prove that he or the Government through whom he claims was in possession within 12 years before suit. If article 144 applies then the suit will be barred unless brought within 12 years, from the date when the possession of the defendants' predecessor in title or of the defendants became adverse, if it really did become adverse.

2. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event.

3. As the question of limitation was not clearly taken in the first Court the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence on the point.


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