KOCHU MUHAMMED Vs. JACOB ALIAS CHACKO
LAWS(KER)-1963-2-29
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on February 06,1963

Kochu Muhammed Appellant
VERSUS
Jacob Alias Chacko Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BANDU ANNAJI V.YESHWANT RAMRAO [REFERRED TO]
MON MOHAN V BIDHU BHUSAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMI V.GOVINDAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
HANMANT GURUNATH KULKARNI VS. RAMAPPA LAGAMAPPA ILAGER [REFERRED TO]
JHAVERBHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL VS. KABHAI BECHER PATEL [REFERRED TO]
THAYAMMAL VS. RANGASWAMI REDDY AND SEVENTEEN ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The question is,does S.6 (read with S.8)of the Limitation Act apply in a case where the plaintiff is not the person under disability at the relevant time but only an assign from such person? And,included in this question,is the question,does it make any difference that the person under disability is a party to the suit,if not,as a plaintiff,at least as a defendant?
(2.)The property still in dispute,56 cents of land - for the rest the suit was compromised - belonged to the 1st defendant in leasehold right,but his title is of no consequence.In 1115 M.E.( 1940 -41 ),when the 1st defendant was about three years old,his mother,acting through a power of attorney agent,leased the property;and the concurrent finding of the courts below is that the lessees have since been in possession,the lessee at present being the 3rd defendant by venture of the assignment,Ext.D1 dated 9 -7 -1958,he obtained from the 4th defendant,a legal representative of the original lessee,who got the leasehold right in partition with the other legal representatives.The 1st defendant attained majority on 13 -2 -1958,and,three months after that,by Ext.P1 dated 5 -6 -1958,he sold the property to the plaintiff,completely ignoring the lease of 1115 M.E.and saying nothing whatsoever about it.The deed,however,said that the property was in the possession of a court Receiver and contained a promise by the 1st defendant to put the plaintiff in possession taking the necessary steps for the purpose.Three months after that,on 28 -9 -1958,less than three years after the 1st defendant had attained majority but more than 12 years after possession had passed under the lease,the plaintiff brought the present suit for possession.In it he averred that the 2nd defendant was in possession as guardian appointed by court for the 1st defendant and that the 3rd defendant was setting up leasehold rights in the property on the basis of the assignment,Ext.D1,from the 4th defendant which he characterised as a sham document not binding upon him or upon the 1st defendant.And,apart from asking for possession,he asked also for a declaration that the lease and its assignments were not valid and were not binding upon him.
(3.)The simple question is,is the suit in time? The courts below have held that it is not and have dismissed the plaintiff 's suit.hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.