Skip to content


Sukramania Mudali and ors. Vs. Kuppammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in31Ind.Cas.106
AppellantSukramania Mudali and ors.
RespondentKuppammal
Cases ReferredSingarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908,), schedule i, article 91 - sale, deed giving no present interest in property--suit to set aside deed on ground of fraud--starting point of limitation. - 1. the decision in singarappa v. talari sanjivappa 15 m.l.j. 228 is exactly in point. at this stage we are not required to examine the averments in the plaint and to say whether plaintiff can succeed in the face of the deed she had executed. the plaint sets up a case of fraud, and states that the defendants were not given any present interest in the property. the cause of action is stated to be defendants' unlawfully taking possession of the property. therefore, according to the plaintiff, the necessity for suing to set aside the sale-deed arose on the attempt to take unlawful possession, which event happened within three years of the suit. the decision in singarappa v. talari sanjivappa 15 m.l.j. 228 follows an earlier ruling of this court in sundaram v. sithammal 3 m.l.j. 144, which has.....
Judgment:

1. The decision in Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 is exactly in point. At this stage we are not required to examine the averments in the plaint and to say whether plaintiff can succeed in the face of the deed she had executed. The plaint sets up a case of fraud, and states that the defendants were not given any present interest in the property. The cause of action is stated to be defendants' unlawfully taking possession of the property. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the necessity for suing to set aside the sale-deed arose on the attempt to take unlawful possession, which event happened within three years of the suit. The decision in Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 follows an earlier ruling of this Court in Sundaram v. Sithammal 3 M.L.J. 144, which has been accepted as good law in Vithai v. Hari 2 Bom. L.R. 638; the decision of the Judicial Committee in Janki Kunwar v. Ajit Singh 14 I.A. 148 : Rafique and Jackson's P.C. No. 99, has been considered in the Madras and Bombay cases. Our attention has not been drawn to any case in which Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 has not been accepted. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeals with costs.


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