Prem NaraIn Vs. Chanderwati and ors.

Prem Narain vs Chanderwati and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 10, 1978

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/684734

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/684734
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: M.S. Joshi, J.
Decided On: Jul 10, 1978
Case Number: Election Appeal Nos. 286 of 1977, 77, 91 and 179 of 1978 and Case Appeal No. 62 of 1977
Subject: Limitation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - The section is not restricted to agricultural land but applies also to urban immovable property though ordinarily the principle applies to the management of agricultural and Where the mortgage had unquestionable authority of the mortgagors to reconstruct the (urban) mortgaged premises, to let out the same and ...

Key legal issue: Limitation
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rule 99; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 76; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 14(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prem Narain

Respondent

Chanderwati and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rule 99; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 76; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 14(2)
Reported In: 15(1979)DLT182

Excerpt

- - the section is not restricted to agricultural land but applies also to urban immovable property though ordinarily the principle applies to the management of agricultural and where the mortgage had unquestionable authority of the mortgagors to reconstruct the (urban) mortgaged premises, to let out the same and were at liberty also to increase or decrease the rent, and they managed the property well, it was held that the mortgagors were, bound by the leases created by the mortgages, even after redemption, and the possession thereof, illegally taken by the decree -holders was ordered to be restored to the lessess under 0. 21. r. 100 civil procedure code (2) held that before the time spent by the decree-holders in their misguided proceedings in the lower courts could be excluded as prayed for by them, it was necessary for the decree-holders to convince the court that they had been prosecuting the said proceedings with due diligence and in good faith. vide clause (h) of section 2 of the limitation act nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. this definition is much more stringent than the one provided by section 3 of the general clauses act 1897 according to which a thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligetly or not'.the party which has been negligent cannot, thereforee, be deemed to have acted in good faith for the purposes of the limitation act.(1) held that acts done by mortgage in possession bona fide and pujently in the ordinary course of management, of property act. the section is not restricted to agricultural land but applies also to urban immovable property though ordinarily the principle applies to the management of agricultural and where the mortgage had unquestionable authority of the mortgagors to reconstruct the (urban) mortgaged premises, to let out the same and were at liberty also to increase or decrease the rent, and they managed the property well, it was held that the mortgagors were, bound by the leases created by the mortgages, even after redemption, and the possession thereof, illegally taken by the decree - holders was ordered to be restored to the lessess under 0. 21. r. 100 civil procedure code(2) held that before the time spent by the decree-holders in their misguided proceedings in the lower courts could be excluded as prayed for by them, it was necessary for the decree-holders to convince the court that they had been prosecuting the said proceedings with due diligence and in good faith. vide clause (h) of section 2 of the limitation act nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. this definition is much more stringent than the one provided by section 3 of the general clauses act 1897 according to which a thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligetly or not'. the party which has been negligent cannot, thereforee, be deemed to have acted in good faith for the purposes of the limitation act. the burden of proving good faith lies in the person who would claim benefit of the provisions in section 14.

Full Judgment

(1) Held that acts done by mortgage in possession bona fide and pujently in the ordinary course of management, Of Property Act. The section is not restricted to agricultural land but applies also to urban immovable property though ordinarily the principle applies to the management of agricultural and Where the mortgage had unquestionable authority of the mortgagors to reconstruct the (urban) mortgaged premises, to let out the same and were at liberty also to increase or decrease the rent, and they managed the property well, it was held that the mortgagors were, bound by the leases created by the mortgages, even after redemption, and the possession thereof, illegally taken by the decree - holders was ordered to be restored to the lessess under 0. 21. R. 100 Civil Procedure Code

(2) Held that before the time spent by the decree-holders in their misguided proceedings in the lower courts could be excluded as prayed for by them, it was necessary for the decree-holders to convince the court that they had been prosecuting the said proceedings with due diligence and in good faith. Vide clause (h) of section 2 of the Limitation Act nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. This definition is much more stringent than the one provided by section 3 of the General Clauses Act 1897 according to which a thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligetly or not'. The party which has been negligent cannot, thereforee, be deemed to have acted in good faith for the purposes of the Limitation Act. The burden of proving good faith lies in the person who would claim benefit of the provisions in Section 14.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1978 Same Parties Prem Narain vs Chanderwati and ors. Same Subject Limitation Same Judge M.S. Joshi, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rule 99; Tran...

Limitation