Skip to content


(Mayyikaran Kalikakath) Kunhi MoidIn Vs. Kalandarakath Pakkar Kutty Karnavan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad1094
Appellant(Mayyikaran Kalikakath) Kunhi Moidin
RespondentKalandarakath Pakkar Kutty Karnavan and anr.
Cases ReferredMadan Mohan Singh v. Brij Behari Lal
Excerpt:
.....either his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him - effect? - held, the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the application form is filled up, is fatal. his subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. in any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the two explanations under clause (iv) of rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. -- t.n. district police act, 1859. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b),..........mad. 181 art. 142, limitation act applies to cases where there is an allegation of possession and dispossession. but where there is no such allegation and where it is not contended that there was dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant, it would not be proper to apply art. 142 in the case. in this case there is evidence that the defendant's possession was only within 12 years. the plaintiff's having title to the property, possession must be deemed to have been with them till their possession was disturbed by somebody. when the defendant is not able to make out possession for 12 years it would be illegal to presume that the plaintiffs were not in possession simply because the defendant happened to be in possession for less than 12 years, for the law presumes that the person who.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. The only question in this second appeal is whether Art. 142 or 144 applies to the facts of the case. The District Judge held that Art. 144, Limitation Act, applied and decreed the plaintiff's suit. It was recently held by Madhavan Nair, J., in Peria Jehangir Swami v. Esuf Sahib A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 834 that in a case like this the proper article to apply is 144. It is suggested by Mr. Krishna Menon that the authority of this decision is much shaken by the view held by Phillips, J., in another case reported in Kuppuswami Mudaliar v. Chokalinga Mudaliar A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 181 Art. 142, Limitation Act applies to cases where there is an allegation of possession and dispossession. But where there is no such allegation and where it is not contended that there was dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant, it would not be proper to apply Art. 142 in the case. In this case there is evidence that the defendant's possession was only within 12 years. The plaintiff's having title to the property, possession must be deemed to have been with them till their possession was disturbed by somebody. When the defendant is not able to make out possession for 12 years it would be illegal to presume that the plaintiffs were not in possession simply because the defendant happened to be in possession for less than 12 years, for the law presumes that the person who has title has also possession. In this case there is no evidence that any third person was in possession between the time when the plaintiff ceased to be in possession and the time when the defendant came into possession. That being so, I think the District Judge was perfectly justified in relying upon the observation in Madan Mohan Singh v. Brij Behari Lal [1920] 5 P. L. J. 592 in support of the position that Art. 142 did not apply to the facts of the case.

2. There is no other point in the case and the second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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