TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the alleged panchayat said to have induced the applicant to remain silent was true; (ii) whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act applied to extend limitation for setting aside the execution sale on the ground of fraud.
Issue (i): Whether the alleged panchayat said to have induced the applicant to remain silent was true.
Analysis: The application for condonation of delay rested on the assertion that a village panchayat had been held and that, acting on assurances said to have been given there, the applicant did not proceed in time to challenge the sale. On the evidence, the alleged arrangement was found to be an afterthought devised to support the plea for limitation. The factual foundation for invoking fraud was therefore not established.
Conclusion: The alleged panchayat was not proved.
Issue (ii): Whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act applied to extend limitation for setting aside the execution sale on the ground of fraud.
Analysis: Section 18 operates only where fraud has prevented knowledge of the right to sue or apply, and the party invoking it must prove the fraud and the resulting want of knowledge. The section is not satisfied by a mere allegation that the transaction was fraudulent. The court also applied the principle that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved, and that limitation is extended only against the person guilty of fraud or persons claiming through him in the manner contemplated by the section. On the facts, the applicant was aware that the sale date had been fixed, and the evidence did not justify extension of time under the provision.
Conclusion: Section 18 was not attracted on the facts proved.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the delay was not shown to be excused by any proved fraud that kept the applicant from knowledge of his right to challenge the sale.
Ratio Decidendi: To attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act, fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved, and it must have kept the applicant from knowledge of the right to sue or apply; a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
