JUSTINIANO AUGUSTO DE PIEDADA BARRETO versus ANTONIO VICENTE DE FONSECA AND ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 06-03-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
494 
JUSTINIANO AUGUSTO DE PIEDADA BARRETO 
v. 
ANTONIO VICENTE DE FONSECA AND ORS. 
March 6, 1979 
[D. A. DESAI AND 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Limitation-Provisions of the Portugue!Je Civil Code relating to limitation, 
whether stand repealed by Lim~tation Act 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) by necessa."Y 
implication, or whether they are saved by section 29(2) of that Act-Limitation 
Act, 1963 section 29(2), Portuguese. Civil Code Art. 535. 
The Goa, Daman 
and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 sub section (I) and (2) of sections Sand 
6. 
The Goa Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulations promulgc1tcd under Art. 240 
of the Constitution, scope of-"Local Law" and "Special Law" difference in--
Whether the Portuguese Civil Code a local law~Whether there is any repugnancy 
.:111d therefore void under Art. 254(1) of the Co11.Jtitutio11. 
On Goa, .Daman and Diu becoming a part of India as a: Union Territory, 
Parliament enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 to 
provide for its administration and for matters connected therewith. Section 
5 (I) of the Act declared that all laws in force immediately before 20th 
December, 1961 in Goa, Daman and Diu or any part thereof shall continu~ 
to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature 
or other competent authority. 
Pursuant to the powers conferred by Article 240 
of the Constitution, the President promulgated certain Regulations 
styled 
as 
'The Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulations' from time to time. These 
Regulations extended certain enactments to Goa, Daman and Diu with specified 
modifications. To the extent that any law in forco in Goa, Dam.an and Diu 
corresponded to any Act which was so extended to those Territories such law 
was declared to stand repealed. 
Before Goa, Daman and Diu becamei part of India, Portuguese Civil Codo 
and the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code were in force in those territories. 
The Portuguese Civil Code contained various provisions dealing with limitation 
for suits, applications and appeals. These provisions were never re.·pealed either 
by express legislative enactment or by an order made by the Central Govemmi!nt 
in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 5 (2) of the 1962 
Act by any Regulation made by the President. Neither a·ny notification by 
the Central Government under section 6 of the 1962 Act was issued nor 'vas 
a regulation made by the President extending the Limitation Act, 1908 to Goa, 
Daman and Diu with or without modification. Nor did any Regulation repeal 
a.ny of the provision of the Portuguese Civil Code relating to Limitation. Even 
the Goa, Daman and Diu (Extension of the Code of Civil 
Procedure and 
Arbitration Act), 1965, neither expressly nor by implication repealed the provi .. 
sions relating to limitation contained in the Portuguese Code. 
The Goa, Daman 
and Diu (extension of the Code of Civil Procedure and Arbitration Act), 
1965 also did not either expressly or by implication repeal the provisions relating 
to limitation in the Portuguese Civil Code. 
In the circumstances, the question that arose for consideration in the appeals 
by the appellants-defendants was '
1wbether the provisions of the Portuguese 
• • 
• 
• 
• 
" 
~· 
\I ., 
~ 
,;~ 
~ 
• 
• 
i v 
.. 
';.cf 
-4 
' 
• 
JUSTINIANO V. ANTONIO 
495 
Civil Code relating to Limitation stood repealed by the Limitation Act, 1963, 
i\ 
by necessary implication, or whether they were saved by Section 29(2) ibid?" 
Dismissing the appeals by special leave the Court, 
HELD : 1. The provisions in the Portuguese Civil Code dealing with the 
subject of Limitation of suits etc. and in force in the Union Territory of Goa, 
Daman and Diu only is "local law" within the meaning of Se<:tion 29(2) 
of the Limitation Act, 1963. These provisions have to be read into the 1963 
Act, as if the schedule to the said Act is amended. muratis mutandfs. [503 B] 
2. If section 32 and section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963 are read 
together it is clear that the -only law of Limitation that was repealed was the 
Limitation Act, 1908 and all other laws dealing with 1~itation, special or local 
were saved and are to be read into the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore{, no 
question of repugnancy or voidness of the provisions of the Portuguese Civil 
Code relating to limitation on that ground arises. They continue to be i~ 
force, in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. [503 A-B, C] 
Deep Chand v. The State of U.P., [19

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