Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1909)ILR31All82
..... a decree-holder auction-purchaser and any other auction-purchaser. i may also refer to article 138 of the second schedule to the limitation act, under which a suit may be brought by an auction-purchaser fir recovery of possession within twelve years from the date of the auction ..... that a purchaser at auction sale may obtain possession by means of a suit is 'manifest from article 138 of schedule ii of the limitation act, to which i have already referred. that article makes no distinction between the case of a decree-holder purchaser and that of any ..... i refer to the cases in i.l.r. 26 calc. 529 : 1 c.w.n. 658 and 6 c.l.j. 749.36. there are decisions of the madras high court which are against the appellant. but even in that court doubt has been thrown on the ..... notes 1886 p. 45; dhunda v. durga weekly notes 1893 p. 122; ghulam shabbir v. dwarka prasad (1895) i.l.r. 18 all. 36 and baboo luchmee narain v. baboo bhairow pershad n.w. p.h.c. rep. 1866 misc. ap. 5 it was held that no appeal lies .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.479
..... decree against the sons, not upon the mortgage security, but upon the simple obligation created by the bond, and that a suit for such a relief must, under the limitation act, be instituted within six years from the date of the mortgage bond.17. in the madras high court in the case of venkataramanaya pautulu and another v. venkataramana dass pantulu ..... money decree against the defendants, not upon the mortgage security but upon the simple obligation created by the bond, and that a suit for such a relief must, under the limitation act, be instituted within six years from the due date of the bond. the decision in luchmun dass v. giridhur chowdhry 5 c. 855, (f.b.) to which i ..... to have exhausted the authorities on the question before us, but i think that the cases to which i have referred fairly illustrate the contending views expressed on that question.36. my learned brothers who decided the cases of debi dat v. jadu rai 24 a. 459. and bahu singh v. bihari lal 30 a. 156. treated the case of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1909)ILR31All176
..... decree against the sons, not upon the mortgage security, but upon the simple obligation created by the bond, and that a suit for such a relief must, under the limitation act, be instituted within six years from the date of the mortgage bond.9. in the madras high court in the case of venkataramanaya, pantulu v. venkataramana doss pantulu (1905 ..... decree against the defendants, not upon the mortgage security but upon the simple obligation created by the bond, and that a suit for such a relief must under the limitation act be instituted within six years from the due date of the bond. the decision in luchmun dass v. giridhur chowdhry to which i have referred, and also in ..... charge fails. this principle is entirely in accord with the principles laid down for evidence in hindu law: mitakshara on the administration of justice--chapter i, section 6.36. i do not propose to deal with the difficulties that have sprung from the case law that has risen round these texts. i have had the advantage of reading .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.379
..... that document.3. the first ground of appeal is, in our opinion, well-founded. under section 20 of the limitation act the payment of interest will save limitation when the payment is made as such, that is to say, the debtor has paid the amount with the intention ..... for any other purpose. therefore, he held that under the provisions of section 20 of the limitation act no. xv of 1877, the payments of these sums saved the operation of limitation. he held further that the letter of the 25th of may 1906, was a distinct promise ..... he made these payments towards interest as such. in this view the claim of the plaintiff is not saved from the operation of limitation by the payments made by the defendant. the appeal, however, must fail upon the second ground.4. the document of the 25th ..... , but the plea which was first urged on this point was not pressed in view of the terms of section 36 of the stamp act no. ii of 1899. in this view of the case the appeal must fail. it is dismissed with costs including fees .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1909)ILR31All495
..... upon that document.3. the first ground of appeal is in our opinion well founded. under section 20 of the limitation act, the payment of interest will save limitation when the payment is made as such, that is to say, the debtor has paid the amount with the intention that ..... paid for any other purpose. therefore he held that under the provisions of section 20 of the limitation act, no. xv of 1877, the payments of these sums saved the operation of limitation. he held further that the letter of the 25th may 1906, was a distinct promise to ..... accrued to the plaintiff on 25th of june 1906, on which date the period of grace expired. the defendant pleaded the bar bi limitation. the court of first instance decreed the suit against the appellant and this decree was upheld on appeal by the district judge. the ..... which was first urged on this point was not pressed in view of the terms of section 36 of the stamp act, no. ii of 1899. in this view of the case the appeal must fail. it is dismissed with costs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1909)ILR31All590
..... . as against this the decision in roshan singh v. mata din (1903) i.l.r. 26 all. 36 has been relied on, and the decree-holders urge that the part payment is a good part payment within the meaning of section 20 of the limitation act of 1877. the part payment made out of the proceeds of the timber was, if a part .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.524
..... could not recognise the payment. as against this the decision in roshan singh v. matadin 26 a. 36 has been relied on, and the decree-holders urge that the part payment is a good part payment within the meaning of section 20 of the limitation act of 1877. the part payment made out of the proceeds of the timber was, if a part .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.124
..... instituted on the 11th of december 1907 and the defence was set up that the claim was barred by article 22 of schedule ii of act xv of 1877, and the suit was dismissed as barred by limitation.2. an appeal has been preferred and it is contended before us that article 22 does not apply to a case when a plaintiff ..... seeks compensation for injury to reputation resulting from an unlawful beating but that either article 120 or article 36 is the article applicable.3. we are of ..... opinion that the court below was right in holding that article 22 applied. that article provides a period of one year's limitation for a claim on grounds other than those previously mentioned, which do not include a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.330
..... closed for the day, and there was no person present having authority to receive the plaints. it would appear that the pleaders themselves were acting under the mistaken belief that the period of limitation for the suits in question expired on february 17th, 1908 and not on the day following. they succeeded in persuading the suits clerk ..... concur in the opinion of the learned district judge that there was no valid presentation upon that day either. the point really turns upon the meaning of section 36 of the code.3. the question is whether the three plaints reaching the munsarim in the manner in which they did, through the hand of the suits ..... passed. in the madras case above referred to, there was an appearence of the plaintiff and his pleader before the proper court within the prescribed period of limitation, and under those circumstances the court felt justified in holding that the previous irregularity and invalid presentation of the plaint had been covered by the subsequent action of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.101
..... import by a term of a less general import, courts, by the canons of interpreiation, are bound to give effect to the change and to hold that the prohibition is limited to the term of the less general import i.e., to 'writing.'12. if the term 'writing' were ambiguous and were applicable to oral statements, a court would have ..... undoubtedly increased. the result is that, with all due respect to the learned judges of the calcutta high court, i hold the view that the general provisions of the evidence act, contained in section 157, are controlled by the special provisions of section 162, criminal procedure code, which followed it and which is a special enactment as against the wider and more ..... change in question is the substitution of 'such writing' for 'statement.10. in interpreting section 162 of the present code of criminal procedure (act no. v'of 1898), the calcutta high court in fanindra nath banerjee v. king-emperor 36 c. 281 : 13 c.w.n. 197 : 5 m.l.t.97 : 9 c.l.j. 199 : 9 cr. l.j. .....
Tag this Judgment!