Advanced Search Results
S. Ratnavathi Vs. A. Narasimhamurthy and anr.
Andhra Pradesh
Jan-22-2003
LimitationProperty
Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Sections 122 - Articles 44 and 65; Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 99 and 100
AIR2004AP29; 2005(5)ALT560
it is well-settled that to an alienation by de jure guardian without legal necessity Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies, while for an alienation by de facto guardian the enlarged period of limitation of 12 years of … father Suranna executed a registered settlement deed dated 26-07-1963 (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiff gifting the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. However, plaintiff's father retained the life estate in himself and gifted only the vested
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskVenkatesan Vs. Neelayathakshiammal and ors.
Chennai
Apr-24-1973
FamilyProperty
Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 7 and 8 - Schedule - Articles 44 and 144; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 2, Rules 2 and 3
AIR1974Mad203
limitation.7. We may mention that the plaintiff-appellant himself has relied on Art. 44 of Schedule I to that Limitation Act, 1908, in his plaint and contended that since he instituted the suit on 29-8-1962, that is, within the period … be no order as to costs.15. Appeal dismissed. Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 7 and 8 and Article 44-Scope Alienation by natural guardian on behalf of minors--Elder minor not suing to set aside. --Alienation on his attaining
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBasave Gowda Vs. Basave Gowda and ors.
Karnataka
Jul-03-1951
Limitation
Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Articles 44 and 126
AIR1952Kant1; AIR1952Mys1; (1952)30MysLJ192
as guardian of his minor sons - The Court held that Article 126, not Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable to the case. - BOMBAY STAMP ACT, 1958. Schedule 1, Article 36: [Y.R. Meena, CJ &
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
T.A. Meenakshi Sundarammal and anr. Vs. K. Subramania Ayyar and ors.
Chennai
Nov-27-1953
FamilyProperty
Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 23; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 345; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3) - Schedule - Articles 44, 123, 140 and 142; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100 and 101; Limitation Law
AIR1955Mad369
Section 6 (1), 6 (2) and 6 (3) and Articles 44, 123, 140 and 142 of Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908 and Sections 100 and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - whether sale under document fell within … on her.Since Kanakavalli was a party 'eo nomine' to the contract of sale evidenced by Ex. D. 3, Article 44 of the Limitation Act would have applied, had Kanakavalli herself brought a suit to avoid Ex. D. 3.
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAlamelu Ammal Vs. Krishna Chetty and ors.
Chennai
Nov-13-1953
Limitation
Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 6 and 6 (3) - Schedule - Articles 44 and 144
AIR1954Mad585; (1954)IMLJ294
- right of legal representative of minor - Section 6 and Articles 44 and 144 of Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908 - appeal against decision of Single Judge dismissing suit as barred by limitation - on basis of Article
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskKishta Bai and ors. Vs. Marthand Rao and ors.
Karnataka
Sep-18-1964
PropertyLimitation
Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 6(3) - Schedule - Articles 44 and 141
AIR1965Kant278; AIR1965Mys278; (1965)1MysLJ132
by limitation - Section 6 (3) and Articles 44 and 141 of Schedule to Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - whether suit filed by plaintiff(stepsister of … void against the minor, that Art. 44 read with S. 6(3) and not Art. 141 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter called the Act) was applicable to the facts of the case and that the suit by the … the sole owner of the property and the alienation by Malsabai in her own right was wholly unauthorised. Article 44 of the Act applies to a suit instituted by a ward, on attainment of majority, to set aside
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRangaswami Goundar Vs. Marappa Gounder and ors.
Chennai
Mar-23-1952
FamilyLimitation
Hindu Law; Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 44; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 115
AIR1953Mad230; (1952)2MLJ497
he can recover possession of the properties. Leave refused. Family - gift - Article 44 of Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908, Section 115 of Evidence Act, 1872 and Hindu Law - dispute for properties between two widows of deceased
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskEachan Neelakantan and anr. Vs. Kumarasami Nadar and anr.
Chennai
Jul-23-1963
Limitation
Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Articles 44 and 144
AIR1964Mad353
will be allowed with costs. Limitation - representation by guardian - Articles 44 and 144 of Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908 - whether in sale of joint family property by manager minor member of family represented eo nomine in … suit was instituted. The alienee pleaded inter alia, that the suit must be held to. be barred by Article 44 of the Limitation Act. Both the courts below without much discussion overruled the plea of limitation. They concurrently
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRamachandran and anr. Vs. Rukmangadan and ors.
Chennai
Apr-17-1973
PropertyLimitation
Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Articles 44 and 140
AIR1975Mad60
is unnecessary for us to consider the other controversies raised by the parties, The trial Court has applied Article 44 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act of 1908 and held that the plaintiffs having instituted the suit … in remainder In the property, is governed by Article 140 and not by Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Schedule I; the suit consequently is not barred if it is brought within 12 years from the date when
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGotiram Nathu Mendre Vs. Sonabai and ors.
Mumbai
Jul-16-1968
Property
Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 91 - Schedule - Articles 44 and 91; Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1963 - Sections 59 - Schedule - Article 59; Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 2, 211, 307, 307(1) and 307(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 32, Rule 7(1) - Order 41, Rule 25; Bombay Rent Act, 1947; Constitution of India - Article 19(1)
AIR1970Bom73; (1969)71BOMLR157; ILR1969Bom402
Bench of which Mr. Justice Shah was a member that Article 91, Schedule I of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, did not apply to a … Assistant Judge, however, disposed of the appeal only on one point holding that the suit was barred by Article 44 of the Indian Limitation Act. He did not deal with the other points. He allowed the appeal and … the sale deed was set aside by a suit under the provisions of Art. 91 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, it was good against the plaintiff. In any event, the plaintiff attained majority on 1st June 1945 and
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »