How to increase your typing speed - Day 5

Welcome to my Blog

Tips To Remember :-  A Student must Practice this line having all Letters.

A quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

If you do not read my previous blog then please read it because in that blog I discussed some tip for typing.

Copy the passage and try for 24 times in a day to improve your typing speed.

NOTE:-  Red words ( Common errors typed by Students )

PASSAGE V

A compromise relating to shares in the suit property was entered into between the plaintiff appellants and the predecessors in interest of the defendant respondents. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were in possession as owner of share and in joint possession of half of the share of the land along with the respondents and the entries in the revenue record of rights should be corrected. The trial court dismissed the suit accepting the defendants plea that the suit having been filed after 18 years of the compromise, was barred by limitation in view of the Article 48 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 where under the suit have been filed within three years of the compromise. The plaintiffs having remained unsuccessful in the first appeal as also in the second appeal, filed the appeal.

 

In the instance case, the right to sue accrued when a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendants was given, as they refused to admit the claim of the appellants, only seven days before filling of the suit. Therefore, as noted in paragraph 16 of the plaint, the suit was filed within three years from the date of infringement and, as such, the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. The courts below including the high court had Proceeded entirely on a wrong footing that the cause of action arose on the date of entering into the compromise and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. Whether or not the compromise decree was acted upon and whether delivery of possession had taken place has to be decided by the trial court before it could come to a proper conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation.

The question of filling the suit before the right accrued to the plaintiffs by compromise could not arise until and unless infringement of that right was notices by one of the parties. The High Court fell in grave error in holding  that the suit was barred by time, and ignored to appreciate that the right of the appellants to have the revenue record corrected arose when the appellants came to know about the wrong entry and the respondents failed to join the appellants in getting it corrected. The High Court was not justified in holding that mere existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records does not, in law, gave rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 of the Schedule of the Act.

The impugned judgment of the High Court on the question that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be sustained.

Thankyou for visiting and reading my Blog

STAY HOME AND KEEP PRACTICING