Skip to content


Syed Noordeen Sahib and ors. Vs. Syed Ibrahim Sahib and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR34Mad74
AppellantSyed Noordeen Sahib and ors.
RespondentSyed Ibrahim Sahib and ors.
Cases ReferredIn Runchor Das v. Parvati Bai I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act xv of 1877, articles 120, 144 - suit by mahomedan for partition of immoveable property governed by article 144 and not 120. - .....nos. 27 to 31 were impleaded on the 27th november 1905, we must hold that the suit as regards immoveables is not time barred. in this view it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the other points argued. but we think that the district judge was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the deduction of the time spent in prosecuting the suit before the munsif- the question was one of market value and the plaintiff paid a substantial court fee. we are not prepared to say that the judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiff's valuation was bond fide,2. mr. rangachariar raised an ingenious contention on the authority at mahomed riasat ali v. hasin banu i.l.r. 19 (1894) cal. 157, that the article applicable was 120 of the limitation act. the privy council applied that.....
Judgment:

1. The suit is by a Mahomadan for partition of a half share of properties both moveable and immoveable on his wife's death. The defendants among whom are the other sharers do not set up adverse possession, Even assuming that possession became ad verse at some time within the last 12 years, there is no reason to suppose that it was adverse before the 27th November 1893; while defendants Nos. 27 to 31 were impleaded on the 27th November 1905, We must hold that the suit as regards immoveables is not time barred. In this view it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the other points argued. But we think that the District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the deduction of the time spent in prosecuting the suit before the Munsif- The question was one of market value and the plaintiff paid a substantial court fee. We are not prepared to say that the Judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiff's valuation was bond fide,

2. Mr. Rangachariar raised an ingenious contention on the authority at Mahomed Riasat Ali v. Hasin Banu I.L.R. 19 (1894) Cal. 157, that the article applicable was 120 of the Limitation Act. The Privy Council applied that article as regards a claim for moveables as the heir of a deceased person. In Runchor Das v. Parvati Bai I.L.R. 19 (1899) Bom. 736, the Judicial Committee decided that a Hindu reversioner suing for the property of a deceased Hindu was entitled to come within six years as regards moveables and twelve years as regards immoveables. Mr. Bangachariar however, argues that this is a suit for partition and that a share can only be allowed after taking into account both moveables and immoveables. That is no doubt so, and, if the plaintiff withholds moveables after six years from the date of the death of the intestate, his shave of the immoveables may be affected. But this has nothing to do with limitation as regards the claims to immoveables. Article 144 of the Limitation Act must be applied to the suit as regards immoveable property. There is no foundation for the contention that the claim for immoveables is time barred.

3. The second appeal is dismissed with coats.


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