GOPAL SARDAR versus KARUNA SARDAR

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 09-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOPAL SARDAR 
v. 
KARUNA SARDAR 
MARCH 9, 2004 
B 
(SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
--
Land Laws: 
c 
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955: Section 8. 
-
Right of pre-emption-Application for-Limitation Act, S. 5-Applicability 
of-Held: An application under S. 8 was in the nature of a suit-Hence, S. 5 
of the Limitation Act not applicable-Further, the limitation period prescribed 
under S. 8 of the W.B. Act only applicable and the limitation period prescribed 
D 
under Art. 1 j7 of the Limitation Act not applicable-The W.B. Act provided 
for express application of S. 5 of the Limitation Act except for S. 8 thereof-
Hence, it amounted to, "express exclusion" of S. 5 of the Limitation Act under 
S. 29(2) thereof-Limitation Act, 1963, Ss. 5 and 29(2). 
Right of pre-emption-Nature of-Held: Is a statutory right but a weak 
E one-Therefore, it had to be exercised strictly in terms ofS. 8 and considerations 
of equity had no place. 
._.._
Words and Phrases: 
"Expressly excluded"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 29(2) of the 
F Limitation Act, 1963. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4688 OF 1998 
---!-' 
The respondent made an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal 
Land Reforms Act, 1955 in the Munsif Court claiming right of pre-emption 
G 
in the suit plot. According to the respondent, she came to know that the 
appellant had purchased the said plot and that transaction came to her 
knowledge only six years later. The appellant contested the case on the ground 
that the application was barred by limitation. The Munsif Court condoned 
the delay but dismissed the application on merits. The appellant's appeal was 
dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. However, the 
H 
826 
.;:-
-
GOPALSARDARv.KARUNASARDAR 
827 
High Court held that the period under Article 137 in the Schedule of the A 
Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to the case and, therefore, upheld the 
order passed by the Munsif Court condoning the delay and remitted the case 
to the first appellate court to decide the matter on merits. Hence the appeal. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2000 
B 
The appellant made an application under Sect.an Ii of the West Bengal 
Land Reforms Act, 1955 to enforce her right of pre-emption stating that she 
came to know about the sale deed of the land in qu·.:stion and that this 
transaction came to her knowledge only four years later. The appellant also 
filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for 
condonation of delay. The Munsif Court rejected both the applications~ The C 
revisional court condoned the delay in making the application under Section 
8 of the W.B. Act applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act and remitted 
the case to the Munsif Court to decide the matter on merits. However, the 
High Court held that the application was barred by limitation and set aside 
· the order of the revisional court. Hence the appeal. 
D 
The respondent in C.A. No. 444/2000 and the appellant in C.A. No. 4688/ 
1998 contended that an application made under Section 8 of the Act was a 
suit and, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to such an 
application. 
The appellant in C.A. No. 444/2000 and the respondent in C.A. No. 4688/ 
1998 contended that Sections 8 and 9 of the Act spoke of "application" and 
not of "suit"; hence, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied; that exclusion 
of the application of the Limitation Act must be made expressly as required 
under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act; and that there was no scope for 
E 
implied exclusion. 
F 
The following question arose before the Court: 
"Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to an 
application made under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 
having regard to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act?" 
G 
Allowing C.A. No. 4688 of 1988 and dismissing C.A. No. 444 of 2000, 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is reference to suits in Section 8 and Article 137 of 
the Limitation Act, 1963, but there is no reference to an application for H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
. ··A enforcement of right of pre-emption. Having regard to the fact that the West 
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is a self-contained Code in relation to the 
enforcement cf rights of pre-emption and looking to the provisions of the 
Limitation Act, it is clear that when one applies for enforcement of rights of 
pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act, the proceedings initiated are in the 
nature of a suit. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.