16	RAMLAL, MOTILAL AND CHHOTELAL Vs. REWA COALFIELDS LTD.	Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.	04/05/1961	Limitation-Condonation of delay in filing appeal-Period for which delay to be explained Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Act IX of 1908) s. 5.	In an application under s.5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of one day's delay in filing an appeal, the question arose whether the appellant had to explain his con- duct during the whole period prescribed for filing the appeal	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
17	THE UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM KANWAR AND OTHERS	Coram: SUBBARAO, K.	29/08/1961	Letters Patent Appeal-Limitation for filing-Requisition and de-Requisition of building-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), s.29 (2) Art. 151-Punjab High Court Rules, r. 4De once of India Rules, r. 75A-Requisitioning and Acquisition- any of I	A building belonging to the respondents was requisitioned by the Government of India under r. 75-A (1) of the Defence of India Rules originally for the purpose of occupation by a certain officer of the Indian National Airways and afterwa	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
18	L. JANAKIRAMA IYER AND OTHERS Vs. P. M. NILAKANTA IYER AND OTHERS	Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.	26/10/1961	Trust-Debtors conveying property to three trustee for repayment of Debts-Administration suit by debtors dismissed on withdrawal subsequent suit on behalf of general body of creditors if barred by res judicata Limitation claim for p	These appeals arose out of a representative suit filed on behalf of the creditors of defendants I to 6 who hat executed a trust deed on August 26, 1936, conveying their properties to three trustees with authority to dispose of the	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
19	ITTAVIRA MATHAI Vs. VARKEY VARKEY AND ANOTHER	Coram: MUDHOLKAR, J.R.	15/01/1963	Limitation-Suit filed beyond time-Decree, if a nullity-- Point of limitation not raised in High Court, if entertainable by Supreme Court-Receiver's possession,if must ensure to successful Party-Appeal-Forum -Abrogated by subsequent	One Ittiyavira, the deceased father of the appellant purchased properties and paid part of the consideration for the transaction in cash and for the balance executed two hypothecation bonds in favour of his vendors, Ramalinga Iyer and Ra	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
20	A. S. KRISHNAPPA CHETTIAR & ORS. Vs. NACHIAPPA CHETTIAR & ORS.	Coram: MUDHOLKAR, J.R.	07/03/1963	Limitation-Suspension of limitation in cases not covered by any specific provision of the Act, general principles of-- Letter written by defendant to the trustees-If acknowledgment of liability--Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), 8	The plaintiff, Ramanathan Chettiar, obtained a decree in O. S. No. 45 of 1943 for the recovery of an amount due on promissory note against one Venkatachalam Chettiar and assigned the decree in favour of the appellant in C. A. 105 of 196	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
21	RAM RAN BIJAI SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BEHARI SINGH ALIAS BAGANDHA SINGH	Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B., WANCHOO, K.N., GUPTA, K.C. DAS, SHAH, J.C., AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA	25/04/1963	Land Reforms-Lands mortgaged-After redemption possession sought but refused by-Persons in possession vacate-Claim of occupancy right-Right by adverse possession-Property vesting in state-Construction of Statute-Suit lands if in "khas possess	The appellants' ancestors had executed a registered rehan bond of the suit land along with other lands. In 1941 the appellants paid off the amount due on the rehan bond and entered satisfaction on the bond. On the redemption of the bond t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
22	MANINDRA LAND AND BUILDINGCORPORATION LTD. Vs. BHUTNATH BANERJEE AND OTHERS	Coram: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR	02/05/1963	Substitution-Application beyond time for setting aside abatement-Lower Court's order set aside by High Court in revision-Propriety-Power of High Court in revision-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), s. 115, O. XXII. rr. 4, 9 (2	The appellant made an application beyond time for substitution, on setting aside the abatement of the suit he had filed against the father of the respondents. The Subordinate judge held that the appellant was prevented by sufficient	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
23	MUSAMMAT MURTI DUSSADHIN AND OTHERS Vs. SURAJDEO SINGH AND OTHERS	Coram: SIKRI, S.M.	11/08/1964	Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), Arts. 142, 144-Suit for Ejectment-Plaintiff's title admitted but possession as tenant claimed Whether Art. 142 or Art. 144 applies.	One M brought a suit in the Munsif's Court against a number of persons including the appellants for a declaration that certain land constituted the bakshat interest of the plaintiff, who had been and continued to be in possession and occ	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
24	GURBINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. LAL SINGH AND ANOTHER	Coram: SUBBARAO, K., DAYAL, RAGHUBAR, MUDHOLKAR, J.R., BACHAWAT, R.S., RAMASWAMI, V.	12/02/1965	Indian Limitation Act (9 of 1908), s. 2(4) and Arts. 142 and 144--Scope of.	One Mst. Raj Kaur was holding certain lands on different tenures under the Raja of Faridkot. She had two daughters. She adopted the son of one of them and put him in possession of all the lands. He transferred a part of the lands to	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
25	KESHARICHAND JAISUKHAL Vs. THE SHILLONG BANKING CORPORATION	Coram: BACHAWAT, R.S.	16/02/1965	Banker and Customer--Nature of relationship between. Indian Limitation Act (9 of 1908), Art. 85---Mutual dealings between Banker and Customer--If article applicable.	The appellant had a combined overdraft and deposit account, also described as a mutual open and current account, with the respondent bank. In December 1946, the respondent credited two cheques to the appellant's account on	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
26	MAMIDI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MANIKYALARAO AND ANOTHER Vs. MANDELA NARASIMHASWAMI AND OTHERS	Coram: SARKAR, A.K.	27/08/1965	Indian Limitation Act, Arts 144 and 120-Alienation of share of Hindu Joint family property-Possession of members of family whether adverse to alienee-Period within which suit for partition and possession by alienee must be brought.	A decree was passed in a money suit against N and his four sons who were members of a Mitakshara Hindu joint family. In execution of that decree the shares of the four sons in the joint family properties, described altogether as 4/5 th share,	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
27	JIWANLAL ACHARIYA Vs. RAMESHWARLAL AGARWALLA	Coram: WANCHOO, K.N.	26/08/1966	Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939 (Bihar No. 7 of 1939), s. 4-Loan, if includes promissory note. Indian Limitation Act (9 of 1908), s. 20-Handing over post- dated Cheque-Date of payment for purpose of limitation.	The respondent advanced a loan to the appellant before he was registered as money-lender in 1952 under the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1939. On February 4, 1954 the appellant executed a promissory note in renewal of this loan and on the sa	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
28	SYED YOUSUF YARKHAN & ORS. Vs. SYED MOHAMMED YARKHAN & ORS.	Coram: BACHAWAT, R.S.	04/01/1967	Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951--Indian Limitation Act, 1908 extended to Hyderabad--Hyderabad Act II of F1322 repealed--Possession of Muslim wakf property situated in Hyderabad lost in 1937--Suit for recovery filed in 1956--Sui	The Dargah Hazarat Habeeb Ali Shah Saheb, a muslim wakf had certain property in Hyderabad of which it was dispossessed in 1937. The Hyderabad Limitation Act II of 1322F did not apply to wakf properties ,and thus there was no limit	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
29	PANNALAL Vs. MURARILAL	Coram: BACHAWAT, R.S.	27/02/1967	Indian Limitation Act (9 of 1908) Art. 164-"Knowledge of the decree", meaning of.	The appellant had dealings with the respondent in respect of a ruqqa and a mortgage. The respondent filed two suits against the appellant for recovery of the moneys due on the ruqqa and the mortgage respectively. The summons in the suits	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
30	NIRANJANLALL AGARWALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA	Coram: MITTER, G.K.	07/03/1968	Indian Railways Act (9 of 1890), ss. 3(6), 77 and 140 (before amendment by Act 39 of 1961)--State-owned Railway--Service of s. 77 notice on Chief Commercial Manager (Claims and Refunds)--If sufficient compliance. Indian Limitation Act (	The appellant booked goods at Sealdah, which is on the border of the territorial limits of the Original Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, to be transported by the Bengal and Assam Railway, owned by the, State and having its	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgemen