Skip to content


Husan Mea Bara Bhuia and ors. Vs. Hazi Naun Mea Chowdhury and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal1050,46Ind.Cas.796
AppellantHusan Mea Bara Bhuia and ors.
RespondentHazi Naun Mea Chowdhury and ors.
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 120 - declaration of title, suit for--plaintiff's name omitted from, settlement records--limitation, commencement of. - 1. in these appeals, as we understand the judgment of the district judge, his finding is that the title of the plaintiffs was not challenged until the year 1909 or 1910. applying then the provisions of article 120 of the limitation act to the case, we find that the learned judge is right in his conclusion that the suit was not time-barred. it has also been suggested before us that the district judge is in error in stating that the plaintiffs' title and possession up to 1900 was admitted. if that be a mistake, the proper course for the defendants-appellants to take was to apply for a review of judgment. in this view these appeals are dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. In these appeals, as we understand the judgment of the District Judge, his finding is that the title of the plaintiffs was not challenged until the year 1909 or 1910. Applying then the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act to the case, we find that the learned Judge is right in his conclusion that the suit was not time-barred. It has also been suggested before us that the District Judge is in error in stating that the plaintiffs' title and possession up to 1900 was admitted. If that be a mistake, the proper course for the defendants-appellants to take was to apply for a review of judgment. In this view these appeals are dismissed with costs.


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