Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1918 (12) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e tenure was knocked down to him. 2. The purchaser paid, in the entire amount of the purchase money, and on the 23rd of May, 1904, he received from the officer conducting the sale a certificate of payment under Section 15 of the Regulation. 3. On the 28th May, 1904, the purchaser received the usual amaldustak or order for possession, but on the 30th of June following, a darpatnidar, being desirous of contesting the right of the zemindar to make the sale, sued her for its reversal. Three similar suits for the same purpose were instituted by other darpatnidars in July and August. A decree for reversal of the sale was passed in each of these suit. That in the first, suit No. 248 of 1901, was passed in the Court of first instance on the 24th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ormula of "money had and received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use," if read as a description and apart from the technical qualifications imported in English law and procedure. 8. But however that may be, their Lordships feel that in view of the course the suit has consistently taken and also of the attitude on both sides here that they ought to deal with the case on the assumption, made for the purpose of this present appeal alone, but without affirming its correctness, that the present suit is competent and that it comes within the terms of Article 97. 9. It is from this assumed basis that they will approach the case. 10. The period of limitation prescribed by Article 97 is three years, and the time from which the period be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... new starting point was suggested in the course of the argument here: it was contended that the period of limitation began to run when possession was lost. 14. There may be circumstances in which a failure to get or retain possession may justly be regarded as the time from which the limitation period should run, but that is not the case here. The quality of the possession acquired by the present purchaser excludes the idea that the starting point is to be sought in a disturbance of possession or in any event other than the challenge to the sale and the negation of the purchaser's title to the entirety of what he bought involved in the decree of the 24th August, 1905. If further support of this view be required, it may be found in the e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid on the 17th November, 1904 and the 17th May, 1905, and if, as is suggested, they are governed by a different Article it can only be the 62nd, which would be an equal bar to the suit. 21. Further than this, their Lordships think it was rightly decided by the High Court that no suit for this amount would lie. 22. These conclusions are sufficient for the determination of this appeal, but there is another branch of the case that calls for notice, not so much for the purpose of this appeal as for its general bearing on litigation under Section 14 of the Regulation. 23. That section authorizes a suit against the zemindar for the reversal of a sale under the Regulation, and then provides that "the purchaser shall be made a party in such su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dy provided by Section 14 in a purchaser's favour excludes all other remedies, apart from any determination of an issue, is a question of some nicety. There is much to be said in favour of its exclusive character on the score of policy and convenience. No actual decision, however, one way or the other has been brought to their Lordships' notice, for though the language of the Chief Justice in Radha Madhub Samonta v. Sasti Ram Sen (1899) I.L.R. 26 Calc. 826 seems to favour the view that the effect of the section is not to exclude all other remedies, to the actual facts of that case the provision of the section could have had no application. This is brought' out in the more guarded judgment of Banerji, J. Obviously, too, the remar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates