DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. versus GURDEV SINGH

DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. versus GURDEV SINGH

A combined reading of Sections 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act provides that a person under disability may sue after cessation of disability, but the period extended cannot exceed three years from cessation. As the respondent filed the suit beyond three years after attaining majority, the suit is barred by limitation.

Parties
Appellant: Darshan Singh and Ors.; Respondent: Gurdev Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 September 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.s.a. No. 31/1987
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; suit held barred by limitation; no interference under Article 136
Legal Topics
Limitation Period for Suits by Minors, Adverse Possession, Application of Limitation Act to Minors
Property Law Limitation Law Limitation Period for Suits by Minors Adverse Possession Application of Limitation Act to Minors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darshan Singh and Ors.

Appellant

Gurdev Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.s.a. No. 31/1987

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit filed by the respondent for possession is barred by limitation under Sections 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether the fabricated will warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

A combined reading of Sections 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act provides that a person under disability may sue after cessation of disability, but the period extended cannot exceed three years from cessation. As the respondent filed the suit beyond three years after attaining majority, the suit is barred by limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; suit held barred by limitation; no interference under Article 136

Orders

  • Appeal disposed of
  • No costs