MAHENDRA KUMAR & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 04-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
MAHENDRA KUMAR & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
MAY 4, 1987 
[V. BALAKRISHNA ERADJ AND 
MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878-Ss. 8, 9, 13 and 14-Suit-
Filing of-Determination of ownership of place where treasure found-
When arises-Filing of counter-claim-Period of limitation. 
A 
B 
c 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder VIII, Rule 6A( 1)-Filing of 
counter-Claim after filing of written statement-Whether maintain-
able. 
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely, Babulal, 
purchased a house in the year 1947 from the sons of one Mannulal. The D 
appellants and the respondents No. 6 to 8 are the sons of the other three 
brothers of Mannulal. In the year 1976 the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 
started reconstructing or renovating their house and in the course ol' 
digging the plinth a treasure consisting of gold and silver ornaments 
and currency notes was found. They intimated the discovery of the trea· 
sure to the Collector, who issued a notification under s. 5 ol' the Indian E 
Treasure Trove Act, 1878. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, the appellants and 
the respondents Nos. 6 to 8 tiled claims before the Collector. The Col-
lector held that the respondents Nos. 2 to 5, the tinders of the treasure, 
are the owners of the house from where the treasure was found and 
permitted them under s. 8 to institute a suit to establish their right 
before February 22, 1979. 
F 
The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 instituted a snit for declaration of 
their title to the treasure without making the other claimants before the 
Collector, parties to the suit. On an application liled under Order I, 
Fule IO of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants and respon-
dents Nos. 6 to 8, the District Judge made them defendents in the suit. G 
Thereatler, they liled their written statement, denying the claim of the 
respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to the treasure and claimed the title thereof to 
f--
them. 
Aller the tiling of the written statement, the appellants tiled a 
counter-claim claiming title to the treasure. The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 H 
155 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A tiled an application praying that the counter-claim should be dismissed 
~ 
:_
contending that it was barred by limitation as prescribed in s. 14 of the 
Act and that it was also not maintainable under Order VIII, Buie 6A(l) 
of the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge dismissed the 
counter-claim holding that it was barred by s. 14 of the Act. In the 
Bevision, the High Court upheld the order of the District Judge and 
B further held that the counter-claim having been filed aller the tiling of 
the written statement, was not maintainable under Order VIII, Buie 
--4 _. 
c 
6A(l) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
Allowing the Appeal to this Court, 
HE~D: 1. The order of the District Judge and the Judgment of 
the High Court are set aside. The District Judge is directed to proceed 
with the hearing of the suit and !ht counter-claim in accordance with 
law. [164F-G] 
2. Under the scheme ot'the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 two 
D kinds of suits can be tiled at two stages, namely, one under s. 8 and the 
other under s. 14. Section 8 provides that if the Collector has reason to 
believe that the treasure was hidden by any person appearing before the 
Collector within one hundred years or by some other person under 
whom such person claims, the Collector shall adjourn the hearing for 
such period as he deems sufticient to allow the claimant to institute a 
E suit to establish his right to the treasure. [161G-H; 162A] 
3. On the other hand, the question of filing a suit under s. 14 will ·-< 
not arise unless the Collector makes a declaration under s. 9 that the 
treasure is ownerless. Such a declaration under s. 9 will be made by the 
Collector if he sees no reason to believe that the treasure was not hidden 
y· 
F 
within one hundred years or if no suit is instituted under s. 8 within the 
period for which the hearing is adjourned by the Collector or if the 
plaintiff's claim is rejected. [ 1628] 
4. If no such contingencies as mentioned in s. 9 take place, the 
Collector will have no jurisdiction to make a declaration that the trea-
G sure is ownerless. If, however, any of such contingencies happens and 
the Collector makes a declaration under s. 9 and two or more persons 
have appeared before the Collector each claiming the ownership of the 
place where such treasure was found or the tinder of the treasure dis-
putes the rig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.