NATHU RAM AND ORS. versus MANPHOOL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 670 · Decided: 23-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NATHU RAM AND ORS. 
v. 
MANPHOOL AND ORS. 
APRIL 23, 1996 
B 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Suit claiming certain propelties filed by reversioners one of the rever-
sioners was in the womb-Other two were existent at the time the ancestral 
properties were gifted to a strange,-.One who was in womb filed the 
C suit-Held: Period of limitation cannot be extended in respect of the other 
two-Their transposition as plaintiff would not have made the slightest dif-
ference-Dismissal of suit:---No inter-ference called for. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2134 of 
1978. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.77 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1097 of 1976. 
Kavin Gulati, (Prashant Kumar) for Ms. V.D. Kharma for the Appel-
E !ants. 
D.V. Sehgal and P.N. Puri for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of a 
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chan-
digarh dated 10.10.1977 in Civil Revision No. 1097 of 1976 and CM 
1996-CII/76. 
One Roopa had a few sons which included Sadda and Dallu. In the 
G line of Sadda, there occasioned an adoption. The adopted person was 
Puran. That adoption was questionable at the instance of the reversioners 
existing in the lines of the other sons. The· gripping parties in the instant 
litigation not only involves Puran (the adopted son) but the reversioners in 
the line of Dallu, and those are Birbal, a great grandson of Dallu; Aaidan 
H 
a grandson of Dallu and Nathu - another great grandson of Dallu. When 
670 
NATIIURAMv. MANPHOOL 
671 
Puran's adoptive mother gifted some ancestral land to a stranger then A 
Nathu was in his mother's womb but the other two namely Birbal and 
Aaidan were existent. Natho after birth and coming of age claimed that he 
had limitation to question the gift by the adoptive mother of Puran as also 
the adoption of Puran and thus filed a suit claiming properties of Sadda 
by re~ersion arraying Puran as the principal defendant and Birbal and B 
Aaidan as interested defendants; besides arraying some others including 
some reversiones as defendants. Apparently, at a point of time, Nathu-
plaintiff got in terms with Puran and on settling the matter with him made 
an application to the Trial Court on 25.10.1975 for withdrawal of the suit. 
On the very same day, allegedly priorly, Birbal and Aaidan the defendants C 
who shared interests of reversion with Nathn, prayed for being transposed 
as plaintiffs to the snit. It is in this situation that the Trial Court was 
confronted with the riddle as to which application deserved disposal first, 
i.e. the application for withdrawal of the suit or the application for 
transposition of those. defendants as plaintiffs. It, by a set of reasoning, 
opted for the transposition first and the withdrawal later and thus kept the D 
suit survived but the High Court reversed it in revision putting the 
withdrawal application first in priority, rendering the application for 
transposition redundant, dismissing the suit as withdrawn. It is this view of 
lhe High Court which is under challenge. 
It is undisputed that per se neither Aaidan nor Birbal, the interested 
defendants in the suit, had any surviving right to sue because the period of 
limitation qua them had run out. The extended period of limitation, which 
Nathu had on account of his being in the womb of his mother on the date 
when limitation started, was personal to him and nobody could under his 
shadow claim extension of limitation, standing apparently on opposite 
sides. It would not have made the slightest difference if the interests of 
these three were treated common because concededly Nathu alone had the 
extended right to sue and not Birbal and Aaidan. Their capacity to sue had 
E 
F 
to be viewed separately. Since the fadum of Nathu being the plaintiff by 
itself could not extend the period of limitation for Birbal and Aaidan, their G 
transposition would not have conferred on them any better capacity or 
right. In such a situation it would not have made the slightest difference 
as to which application deserved priority in disposal as both could have 
been taken up together, and the end-result in any event, would have been 
to hold that Birbal and Aaidan could not on their ov,n file or pursue the H 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A suit, even if transposed as plaintiffs which had to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.