LexGOTHAMCHAND JAIN versus ARUMUGAM @ TAMILARASAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 181 GOTHAMCHAND JAIN v. ARUMUGAM @ TAMILARASAN (Civil Appeal No. 8308 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Limitation Act, 1963 - Art. 54 - Law of limitation in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile French Establishment - Suit for specific performance of contract filed C at Pondicherry in 1991 - Suit resisted on the ground of - limitation - Applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, vis-a-vis, Article 2262 of the French Code Civil - Held: The Limitation Act was passed by the Parliament on 5.10.1963 - Since by that time, the Union Territory of D Pondicherry had become part of India, the Limitation Act automatically extended to the then Pondicherry and consequently, came into force in the Union Territory of Pondicherry on 1.1.1964- Consequently, it is not Article 2262 of the French Code Civil that applied to the suit in question, E but Art.54 of the Limitation Act - Said suit having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/Art.54 of the Limitation Act, was clearly barred by limitation - French Code Civil - Art. 2262. The applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, vis-i-vis, Article 2262 of the French Code Civil, said to be the governing law of limitation in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile French Establishment, came to be considered in the instant appeals. The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry in the year 1991. The suit was resisted, inter 181 F G H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A alia, on the ground of !Imitation. The trial Court held that Article 2262 of French Code Civil was applicable to the Union Territory - Pondicherry which provided that the limitation for original cause of action is thirty years and accordingly, the suit claim was not time barred. The High B Court, however, held that it is Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that would apply in the matter of filing of the suit in Pondicherry and not Article 2262 of the French Code Civil and that consequently, the suit filed for specific performance of the contract, was not saved by c Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act which provided that the suit be filed within three years of the date of agreement. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD:1.1. The de jure merger of the erstwhile French Territory of Pondicherry took place on 16.8.1962 following the Treaty of Cession concluded between France and India on 28.5.1956 establishing the cession of the French Establishments by France to India in full sovereignty. The E Limitation Act, 1963 was passed by the Parliament on 5.10.1963. By that time, the Union Territory of Pondicherry had become part of India. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963 says that it extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Since the F Union Territory of Pondicherry having become part of India, the Limitation Act automatically extended to the then Pondicherry. The Limitation Act, 1963, . consequently, came into force in the Union Territory of Pondicherry on 1.1.1964. [Paras 8, 10] [186-B-C; 187-F-H] G 1.2. By virtue of the Limitation Act, 1963, the French H Law of Limitation which had been in force till 1.1.1964, was impliedly repealed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968, as amended, has adopted several legislations in the State of • GOTHAMCHAND JAIN v. ARUMUGAM @ 183 TAMILARASAN Pondicherry, but the Act which governs limitation is the A general law of the land that is the Indian Limitation Act. Consequently, it is not Article 2262 of the French Code Civil that applies to the suit in question, but Section 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Under such circumstances, as rightly held by the High Court, the suit B filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is clearly barred. [Paras 11, 14) (188-A-B; 189-H; 190-A-C] Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik and Another (2001) C 4 sec 713: 2001 (2) SCR 714 - relied on. Justiniano Augusto De. Piedade Barreto v.Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca (1979) 3 SCC 47: 1979 (3) SCR 494 - held overruled. Case Law Reference: 2001 (2) SCR 714 1979 (3) SCR 494 relied on held overruled Para 5 Para 12 CIVIL APPELLATE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.