TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed, defendants liable for damages under Indian Limitation Act.</h1> <h3>Latif Ahmad and Ors. Versus Amtul Rahman and Ors.</h3> The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to decree the suit for damages against all defendants. The court held that the suit fell ... - Issues:1. Limitation period for recovery of damages for unlawful use and occupation.2. Applicability of proper Article for mesne profits claim.3. Liability of defendants for damages for use and occupation.Analysis:Issue 1:The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages for unlawful use and occupation for a specific period. The defendants raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the suit was governed by Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. However, the trial court held that the suit fell under Article 113 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, with a limitation of three years. The trial court decreed the suit against the first defendant only, based on the privity of contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant.Issue 2:The defendants contended that the claim for mesne profits for more than three years before the suit was time-barred. They argued that the proper Article applicable was Article 109 of the old Act or Article 51 of the new Act. However, the court clarified that Article 109 applied when profits were wrongfully received by the defendant from the plaintiff's property. Since there was no evidence or allegation that the first defendant received profits from the other defendants, the court held that Article 120 of the old Act applied, which had a six-year limitation period.Issue 3:The defendants further argued that no decree could be passed against them due to lack of privity of contract with the plaintiff. However, the court cited precedent stating that the right to recover damages for use and occupation is not based on the Transfer of Property Act but on general law. As the defendants were in possession of the property, they were held liable to pay damages decreed by the lower appellate court.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to decree the suit for damages against all defendants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
