INDIAN LIMITATION ACT

1	SANT LAL MAHTON Vs. KAMALA PRASAD.	Coram: MUKHERJEA, B.K.	17/10/1951	Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908), s. 20 (1)--Payment of interest before expiry of period of limitation--Acknowl- edgment in writing after limitation--Whether gives fresh period of limitation-Acknowledgement after institution of suit, whet	While s. 20 of the Limitation Act requires that the payment should be made before the expiration of the period of limitation, it does not require that the acknowledgement of the payment should also be made within that period. But it is	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
2	MERLA RAMANNA Vs. NALLAPARAJU AND OTHERS.	Coram: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA	04/11/1955	Court, Power of-Suit to set aside sale held in excessive execution of the decree-Maintainability-Plaint, if may be treated as an execution application-Limitation-Inherent jurisdiction of court to whose jurisdiction the subject- matter	The appellant was the assignee of a mortgage dated 14-12- 1911, executed by A, which comprised. lands belonging to the mortgagor and also a mortgage executed by the respondents in his favour on 19-7-1909. The appellant instituted a suit in the c	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
3	NAGUBAI AMMAL & OTHERS Vs. B. SHAMA RAO & OTHERS.	Coram: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA	26/04/1956	Lis pendens, Scope of-If prevents passing of title as between the transferor and the transferee-Nonjoinder of Receiver in insolvency in the execution proceeding-Effect- Transferee pendente lite, if entitled t	The appellants as defendants in a suit for declaration of title to certain building sites sought to resist the respondents' claim, arising by purchase from a purchaser in a sale in execution of a mortgage dec	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
4	SIRAJUL HAQ KHAN & OTHERS Vs. THE SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQF,U. P. & OTHERS	Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.	16/09/1958	Waqf-Suit against Central Board - Notice--Limitation-United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act (U. P. XIII of 1936), ss. 5, 53- The Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908), s. 15.	The respondent No. 1, a Central Board constituted under the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936, by a notification under s. 5(1) Of the Act dated February 26, 1944, took into' management the properties of a Darga Sharif and on October 18, 194	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
5	BALKRISHNA SAVALRAM PUJARI AND OTHERS Vs. SHREE DNYANESHWAR MAHARAJSANSTHAN & OTHERS.	Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.	26/03/1959	Limitation-Suit for Possession of Sansthan by hereditary worshippers on ouster by trustees-Period of limitation- Trustees, if in possession adversely to Plaintiffs-Ouster, if a continuing wrong-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908),	The appellants who were the hereditary worshippers, called Guravs, of the Shree Dnyaneshwar Sansthan of Alandi, claimed to be its owners. The respondents as trustees of the said Sansthan dismissed eleven of the Guravs in 1911, served a notice	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
6	RM.NL. RAMASWAMI CHETTIAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, RAMANATHAPURAM Art MADURAI & OTHERS	Coram: SARKAR, A.K.	28/08/1959	Insolvency--Decree-holder assigning decree-Adjudication as insolvent on ground of assignment being fraudulent preference-Whether upon adjudication decree vests in official Receiver-Orderannulling assignment-if	On May 91 1935, one V obtained a decree against R and later assigned the same in favour of his mother M. M made an application for an order recognizing her as the assignee and for 617 execution which was disposed of on September 27, 19	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
7	UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMAR SINGH	Coram: SUBBARAO, K.	28/10/1959	Contract-Implied contract of bailment--Goods entrusted to Pakistan Railway for delivery in India-Pakistan Railway handing over goods to Indian Railway-Loss of goods-Liability of Indian Railway to consignor-Limita	The respondent booked certain goods on September 4, 1947, with the N. W. Railway at Quebec in Pakistan to New Delhi. The wagon containing the goods was received at the Indian border station of Khem Karan on November 1, 1947, duly sealed a	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
8	MST. RUKHMABAI Vs. LALA LAXMINARAYAN AND OTHERS	Coram: SUBBARAO, K.	17/11/1959	Hindu Law-joint family-Partition-Admissions of members accepting Partition, value of-New point-When can be allowed to be raised-Suit for declaration of deed as sham- -Right to sue, when accrues-Limitation-Specific Relief Act, 1877, (1 of 1877)	A joint Hindu family which was heavily indebted owned extensive properties and business. In 1915 certain members of the family including one Govindprasad executed a registered deed of relinquishment in favour of another member.	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
9	JAGAT DHISH BHARGAVA Vs. JAWAHAR LAL BHARGAVA & OTHERS	Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.	05/12/1960	Appeal--Decree not Prepared--Appeal filed without copy of decree--Competency of--Subsequently decree prepared and copy filed--Limitation--Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908) 0. 41, r. 1--Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908) s. 12(2).	The respondents filed a suit for specific performance against the appellant which was dismissed on March 12, 1954. On March 24 the respondents made an application for a certified copy of the judgment and decree. The decree was not d	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
10	GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL Vs. MUSADDI LAL.	Coram: SHAH, J.C.	31/01/1961	Railway---Non-delivery of goods--Suit for compensation for non-delivery, if distinct from compensation for loss, destruction' or deterioration--Notice of claim for compensation, if condition precedent--Limitation from when to run--I	The respondent served on the Railway Administration a composite notice under s- 77 of the Indian Railways Act and under s. So of the Code of Civil Procedure and sued for price of goods and for loss on account of nondelivery. The claim	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
11	C.MOHAMMED YUNUS Vs. SYED UNISSA AND OTHERS	Coram: SHAH, J.C.	14/02/1961	Muslim law-Religious endowment-Surplus income to be dis- tributed amongst the members of the family-Claim by females- If governed by custom or personal law-Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (26 of 1937), as amended by Muslim P	Under a scheme a Board of Trustees was appointed for administration of the Durga and a Masjid for the maintenance of which the Nawab of Carnatic had granted two villages in Inam. The income of the institution after disbursing the expenses	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
12	DEVIDAS AND OTHERS Vs. SHRISHAILAPPA AND OTHERS.	Coram: SHAH, J.C.	21/02/1961	Mortgage-Non-joinder of Parties-Proper, but not -necessary, added beyond limitation-Suit instituted on behalf of joint family-Plaintiff not described as manager in the plaint- Maintainability of suit-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), s	The manager of an undivided Hindu family consisting of himself, his brother and their step-mother, instituted a suit for recovery of the amount due under a mortgage belonging to the family. The step-mother who was interested in th	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
13	KHAN BAHADUR SHAPOOR FREDOOM MAZDA Vs. DURGA PROSAD CHAMARIA AND OTHERS	Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.	01/03/1961	Limitation-Computation of fresh Period of limitation-Letter written by mortgagor to mortagee-If acknowledgment of liability Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), s. 19.	In a mortgage suit brought by him, the respondent 1, the mortgagee, pleaded that limitation was saved by a letter written to him by the mortgagor, the respondent 2, which amounted to acknowledgment under s. 19 of the Indian Limita	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
14	K. S. NANJI AND COMPANY Vs. JATASHANKAR DOSSA AND OTHERS	Coram: SUBBARAO, K.	22/03/1961	Limitation-Encroachment on coal lands-Suit for damages on ascertainment of boundary-Knowledge of encroachment--Burden of proof-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), art. 48- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), ss. 3, 101.	The appellants and the respondents were owners of adjoining collieries and the suit out of which the present appeal arose was one brought by the respondents for certain reliefs on the allegation that the appellants had encroached upon their c	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
15	NILKANTHA SHIDRAMAPPA NINGASHETTI Vs. KASHINATH SOMANNA NINGASHETTI AND OTHERS.	Coram: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR	28/04/1961	Arbitration-Award filed in court' Expression "give notice", meaning of-If must be given in writing-Period of limitation to file objections from when to run-Objection to set aside award filed beyond time-Court files the award-If amounts to refusa	In a partition suit the Arbitrator filed his award in the court and the judge adjourned the case for "the parties' say to the arbitrator's report." No notice in writing was given to the parties by the court of the filing of the award. Object	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgemen