9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves determining the limitation period for filing a title suit, the applicability of Article 59 and Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the knowledge imputed to the real owner through the benamidar, and the implications of Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Title Suit Limitation Period: The petitioner filed a suit in 1981 challenging preliminary and final decrees from 1973 and 1974, respectively. The High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, as the petitioner had full knowledge of the earlier proceedings through the benamidar, and thus, the suit was filed beyond the three-year limitation period. Applicability of Article 59 and Article 113: The petitioner argued that Article 113, not Article 59, should apply as he was not a party to the decree. However, the courts found that Article 59 applied as the petitioner had full knowledge of the decrees and the facts from the beginning, making the suit time-barred under Article 59. Knowledge Imputed to Real Owner: The judgment emphasized that the knowledge of the benamidar can be imputed to the real owner. The petitioner's full knowledge of the earlier proceedings through the benamidar led to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59. Implications of Section 55(1) of Transfer of Property Act: Section 55(1) imposes obligations on the seller to disclose material defects in the property or title. The courts found that the petitioner had full knowledge of the defects in title from the beginning, as evidenced by the benamidar's actions, and failed to produce crucial documents, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The judgment dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the lower courts' decisions based on the application of Article 59, the imputation of knowledge from the benamidar to the real owner, and the petitioner's failure to disclose material facts under Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act.
|
