LexNAV RATTANMAL AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS NAV RATTANMAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (P. 13. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, IC N. W ANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) [1962] Limitation-Sixty years for suits by the Government-Consti- tutionality of-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), Art. 149 -Co>istitution of India, Art. 14. The Government filed a suit on the basis of a security bond executed by a Government Treasurer and certain sureties who joined in the execution of the bond. The contention in defence, inter alia, was that art. 149 of the lndiau Limitation Act pres- cribing a 60 years period of limitation for suits by the Govern- ment was unconstitutional as violative of Art. 14 of the Consti- tution and as such the suit was barred under art. 83. Held, that statutes cif limitation are designed for the bene- ficent public purpose of preventing the taking away from one what he has been permitted to consider his own for a long time and on the faith of which he plans his future life. If the suit was by a private individual the suit would have fallen under art. 83 and would have been barred by it but different considerations arise in the case of the State and there is a distinction between claims by the Government and those -of private individuals. Article 149 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which fixes a period of 60 years for suits by the Government has a reasonable basis of classification between the Government and private individuals, and the exact period that should be allowed to the Government to file a suit would be a matter of legislative policy and as such its constitutional validity cannot be questioned under Art. 14 of the Constitution. Purushottam Govindji Halai v. Desai, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 887, Collector of Malabar v. Ebrahim, [1957] S.C.R. 970 and Mannalal v. Collector of ]halwar, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 962, applied. Crv1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 454of1957. Appeal from the judgment and order dated Decem- ber 16, 1954, of the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1952. · ' r A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and I'. L. Vohra, for the appeJ!ants. G. C. Kasliwal, Advocate-General, Rajasthan, S. K. Kapur and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. , 2 S.C.lt. SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS 325 1961. April 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by }lav Rattanmal AYYANGAR, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate . "· . grltnted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, and is State of Ra1asthan directed against the judgment of that Court dated Ayyanga' J. December 16, 1954 by which the decree in favour of the respondent-Union of India-was affirmed. Seth Lal Chand Kothari-the original first appel- lant in the appeal before us (he died pending this appeal and his heirs have been brought on record as his legal representatives - appellants l to 6) W!J-S appointed by the Commissioner Ajmer-Merwara as Government Treasurer, Ajmer-Merwara, by an order dated February 20, 1940, the treasuries to be under his charge being two-that at Ajmer and a sub- treasury at Beawar. Before accepting office ·he had, under the rules, to deposit Government pro- missory notes to the extent of Rs. 60,000 and also execute a Security Bond for a like amount with two sureties to cover any loss to the Government in these treasuries. He accordingly made the deposit, and a security bond was executed by him on Februa- ry 27, 1940 with Seth Phool Chand-who is now the 7th appellant in the appeal and one Seth Kanwar!al Ranka who died even before the suit and was not impleaded in it. Thereupon J,aJ Chand Kothari was directed to take charge of the office as Treasurer and he did so on March 6, 1940. We are not concerned with the treasury at Ajmer, but only with that at Beawar. Lal Chand, at the time of his taking charge, executed a receipt headed "charge-report" and in it is recited that he had taken over from the previous incumbent (M. L. Patni) the amount of cash which tallied with what had to be in the treasury according to the books. Nothing happen- ed between 1940 and 1948 and the business at the treasury appeared to be proceeding regularly and according to the rules. It may be mentioned that there were the usual periodical checks and audits by 326 SUPREME COURT REPORT8 [1962J 1961 Government officials but no impropriety was discover- ed during these checks or audits. On March 31, 1948, Nav Natlanmal v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.