Skip to content


Lakhi NaraIn Pradhan Vs. Ram Prosad Janna and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR12Cal197
AppellantLakhi NaraIn Pradhan
RespondentRam Prosad Janna and anr.
Excerpt:
limitation act (act xv of 1877, schedule ii, articles 136 and 144) - suit to obtain possession of land from vendor who has been dispossessed and subsequently recovered possession--possession, suit for. - .....court's finding as to the passing of the consideration and the benami nature of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants.2. as regards the last two points we think that the findings of the appellate court are unassailable in second appeal. the onus lay upon the defendants to prove that consideration had passed, and that the transaction was benami and in the evidence the lower courts found against the defendants.3. as regards the point of limitation we think that the appellant's vakil is wrong in contending that the case falls under article 136 of the limitation act. it is true that the defendants' vendors were not in possession at the time of the sale, but we think that the article is not intended to apply to a suit brought against the vendors themselves upon their.....
Judgment:

Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.

1. The points raised in this appeal are that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the suit was not barred under the provisions of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, and also that the Appellate Court was wrong in reversing the first Court's finding as to the passing of the consideration and the benami nature of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants.

2. As regards the last two points we think that the findings of the Appellate Court are unassailable in second appeal. The onus lay upon the defendants to prove that consideration had passed, and that the transaction was benami and in the evidence the lower Courts found against the defendants.

3. As regards the point of limitation we think that the appellant's vakil is wrong in contending that the case falls under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. It is true that the defendants' vendors were not in possession at the time of the sale, but we think that the article is not intended to apply to a suit brought against the vendors themselves upon their recovering possession. It appears to us that the lower Appellate Court was right in applying Article 144 of the Aot. That being so, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Court below. The appeal will be dismissed but without costs, as no one has appeared for the respondent.


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