Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Maddali Venkatrayudu And Ors. vs Moova Sankarayya on 2 April, 1909
Equivalent citations: 1 Ind Cas 901
Bench: A White, Miller


JUDGMENT

1. The third issue was framed on the assumption that the case was governed by Article 144 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge proceeded on this view. He accordingly dealt with the case as if the onus was on the defendant. In this, we think, he was wrong. The article of the Limitation Act which applies is Article 142 and the plaintiff must show possession and dispossession within 12 years prior to the date of the institution of the suit. See Gopaul Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Nilmoney Mitter 10 C. 374; Mohima Chunder Mozoomdar v. Mohesh Chunder Neoghi 16. C. 473 and Mahammad Amanulla Khan v. Badan Singh 17 C. 137.

2. We must, therefore, ask for a finding by the Subordinate Judge on the evidence on record, whether the plaintiff or his predecessor in title was in possession and was dispossessed within 12 years prior to the date of the suit. The Subordinate Judge will of coarse, in determining this question, take into consideration the nature of the land in dispute.

3. The finding should be submitted within six weeks, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

88 queries in 0.144 seconds.