It is not the form in which deed is clothed, but the nature of transaction, which is decisive #indianlaws


A document, as is well known, must be read in its entirety. When character of a document is in question, although the heading thereof would not be conclusive, it plays a significant role. Intention of the parties must be gathered from the document itself but therefor circumstances attending thereto would also be relevant; particularly when the relationship between the parties is in question. For the said purpose, it is essential that all parts of the deed should be read in their entirety. In the instant case, the document in question had a condition that the amount mentioned when paid back within five years from the date of execution, the property would be returned and in the event of failure, the no right to claim back will exist. 

Transaction in minor’s name contravening Guardianship Act, 1956 and also without any legal necessity is voidable #indianlaws


Section 7 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that when one of several persons who are jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of the decree and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against all of them but when no such discharge can be given, time will not run against all of them until one of them becomes capable of giving discharge. Further, as per Explanation 2 of Section 7, the manager of a Hindu undivided family governed by Mitakshara law shall be deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without concurrence of other members of family only if he is in management of the joint family property. In the present case, Plaintiffs 3 to 5 though majors as on the date of institution of suit would not fall under Explanation 2 of Section 7 of the Limitation Act as they were not the manager or Karta of the joint family. The suit was held to be as instituted well within three years of limitation from the date of attaining majority as envisaged under Article 60 of the Act.

Apex Court interprets the term ‘First Learns’ under Limitation Act#indianlaws


The Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of the term “first learns” as provided under Article 91(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and held that the provision of Article 91 (a) of the Limitation Act demands two things: First, knowledge on the part of the plaintiff; and second, the relevant fact is within his peculiar knowledge. The term “first learns” places a burden of knowledge which is rather specific in nature. Thus, the knowledge must be of the identity of a specific person in whose possession the bonds are and that he acquired the possession of the said bonds under an arrangement, which in law would constitute wrongful conversion.

Section 9A CPC as introduced by Maharashtra Amendment Act will prevail over Section 9 CPC


Section 9A provides a self-contained scheme with a non-obstante clause which mandates the court to follow the provision and at the same time is a complete departure from the provisions contained in Order XIV Rule 2 CPC. 

The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay #indianaws


The Court observed that rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

© 2010-15