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

1983 (5) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inder Singh etc. For a sum of ₹ 400 and mutation regarding the same was sanctioned on Aug. 14. 1938. Tarlok Singh against mortgaged this land with Jhangi Singh and Nand Singh for a sum of ₹ 500 and mutation was sanctioned on Aug. 18, 1938. Tarlok Singh also died and the plaintiff and the defendants are his successors-in-interest. Pritam Kaur plaintiff alleged that she had 1/8th share in the property left by Sobha Singh as after the death of Tarlok Singh. Santi inherited 1/8th share and she was the successor-in-interest of Santi. Defendant Sher Singh got redeemed all the three mortgagees in 1944 and after redemption the share of the plaintiff devolved upon him as a mortgagee. The total amount of all the three mortgages was ₹ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der the Civil P. C. by a Court exercising general civil jurisdiction to which S. 14 of the Limitation Act applies. As a result of this finding the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same the plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal in this Court. 4. It is a common case of the parties that the limitation for filing the suit for redemption expired on 1-1-1971. Whereas the present suit was filed on June 10, 1971. According to the plaintiff she is entitled to exclude the period under S. 14 of the Limitation Act which was spent in prosecuting the application made by her before the Collector under the Act. It is also the common case of the parties that if that period is allowed then the suit is within time. The said applic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... counsel this will fall within the ambit of other cause of a like nature as provided in S. 14 of the Limitation Act. In support of his contention he referred to Bhai Jai Kishan v. Peoples Bank. AIR 1944 Lah 136(FB), Smt. Swaranamoyee Dasi v. Debendranath Karan. AIR 1944 Lah 136(FB). Parameswaran Kartha v. Edapally Valia Raja. AIR 1959 Ker 7, Bhupendra Singh v. Thakur Gulab Singh, AIR 1966 Raj 92. Chalisgoan Shri Laxmi Narayan Mills Co Ltd v. Amritlal Kalidas Kanji. AIR 1964 Bom 76. Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass v. E. D. Sassoon Co. AIR 1929 PC 103. K. B. Mohammad Maqsood Ali Khan v. B. Hoshiar Singh AIR 1945 All 377. Ramnarayan Singh v. Kubera Sahu. AIR 1962 Orissa 100. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to Hrida .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... while deciding the dispute to be the Court while deciding the dispute as contemplated under the Act. The Court contemplated under S. 14 of the Limitation Act does not necessarily mean the Civil Court under the Civil P. C. Any Tribunal or Authority deciding the civil rights of the parties will be deemed to be a Court for that purpose. In Bhupendra Singh v. Thakur Gulab Singh. AIR 1966 Raj 92, it has been observed in para 9 thereof that the word 'Court' used in that section must be construed liberally. The contention of the counsel in that case was that the Court of Wards was not a Court within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act which was repelled. Similarly, in Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass v. E. D. Sassoon Co., AIR 1929 PC 103, it was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not maintainable and the same is rejected. Thus the order of the Collector will be covered under 'other cause of like nature' though it had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 4 of the Act. As a matter of fact under the Act the Collector was required to decide the amount of mortgage money under Section 9 thereof. He without deciding the controversy between the parties dismissed the application as not maintainable. Under these circumstances it could not be successfully argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to that period because the Collector had the jurisdiction to entertain the application but he wrongly declined the same. It is true that if the Authority had the jurisdiction to entertain the appli .....

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