LexMADHAVRAO NARAYANRAO PATWARDHAN versus RAMKRISHNA GOVIND BHANU AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1958
April I8.
5e4
SUPREME COURT n~POR!rs
(1959J
MADHAVRAO NARAYANRAO
PATWARDHAN
v.
ItAMKRISHNA GOVIND BHANU
AND OTHERS
(with connected appeal)
•
(B. P. SINHA,
JAJ<'ER IMAM and SuBBA RAO JJ.)
Li1n£tation-Suit instituted without disclosing value of tlze pro-
perties-Plaintiff applying for return of plaint for re-presentation to
proper Court-Computation of period of limitation-Dtduction of
time of pendency in original Court-Burden of proof-Good faith-
Due diligence-General Clauses Act, I897. (X of I897), s. 3(20)-
lndian Limitation Act, I908 (IX of Igo8), ss. 2(7), I4.
Where the plaintiff i11stituted a suit in the Munsiff's court on
January 31, 1929, but without !lisclosing the value of the p1oper-
ties for the purposes of jurisdiction, and on an application made
by him on June 21, 1940, in which it was pointed out that the
court had no pe-cuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit, the court
allo\ved the application directing the plaint to be returned to be
presented to the proper Court, and. the question arose as to
whether the plaintiff was entitled, under s. 14 of the Indian Limi-
tation Act, 1908, to a deduction of the time between January 31,
1929, when the suit had been originally filed and July 4, 1940,
\Vhen the plaint \vas re-presented to the court of the District
Judge:
Held, that the burden lay on the plaintiff to satisfy all the
conditions necessary to bring the case \vithin s. 14 of the Act.
In the instant case it was nOt proved that the suit, \vhile it
remained pending originally, had been prosecuted with due dili_
gence and in good faith, and the plaintiff was therefore held not
entitled to the benefit of the section.
• In order to show that the suit was prosecuted in " good
faith", the plaintiff must prove that he had done so with due
care and attention as defined in s. 2(7) of the Indian Limitation
Act and not as in s. 3(20)' of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
CIVIL APPELLATE JtrRISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
287 & 288 of 19.55.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated
November 30, 19.51, of the Bombay High Court in
Appeal No. 104 of 1950 from Original Decree, arising
out of the judgment and decree dated December 12,
19.45, of the Court of the District Judge, Mimj, in Suit
No.,2 of 19.40 •
•
.,,
,.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REP01{,TS
565
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, G. A. Desai and Naunit Lal ·
for the appellant in C. A. No. 287 of 1955 and res-
pondent No. 6 in C. A. No. 288 of 1955.
H. N. Sanyal, Allditional Solicitor-General of India,
K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant in
C. A. No. 288 of 1955 and respondent No. 2 in C. A.
No. 287 of 1955.
•
Purshottmn Tricumdas, J. B. Daclachanji, S. N.
Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No. 1
ii1 both the appeals.
1958.
April 18.
The following Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SnrnA J.-These two appeals are directed against
the judgment and decree dated N oveinber 30, 1951,
passed• by a, Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature a,t Bombay, 're\rersing thoRc of the District
Judge at Mira.;, dismi >sing the plaintiff's suit for p·o ;ses-
sion and mesne profits in respect of the suit ·properties
in Civil i:)uit No. 2 of 1940. Civil Appeal No 287 of
1955, is on behalf of the added respondent No. 7, and
the Civil Appea,l No. 288 of 1955, is on behalf of the
a,cldecl respondent No. 6-the Sta,te of Bombay which
now represents the o~iginal first defendant-the Mira,j
State (now merged in the State of Bombay).
In the view we have taken, as will presently appear,
on the question of limitation, it is not necessary to
state in any detail the pleadings of the parties or the
merits of the decisions of the courts below. For the
purposes of these appeals, it is only necessary to state
that the plaintiff-respondent who was the appellant in.
the High Court, had instituted a suit on January 31,
1929, the very last clay of limitation, in the lVIunsiff's
court at Miraj. This suit was registered as Oi,iginal
Suit No. 724 of 1930, in that court. Tlte plaintiff
prayed in the plaint for possession and mesne profits
in respect of lands at l\falgaon and '£akli, on the ground
that the then State of Miraj had wrongfully resumed
those lands in 1910, as part of the State Sheri-Khata,
which,
0after inquiry, was ordered on July 31, 1915, to
. be recorded ;:1.s such lands~ itnd the usufruct thereof
•
/
•
Madhavrao
A7 araya-nrao
Patwardh <'.IZ
v.
Ra111k1-ishna
Govind Bhanu
and OtheExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.