LexRAGHUNATH DAS versus GOKAL CHAND AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS SU RAGHUNATH DAS v. GOKAL CHAND AND ANOTHER (S. R. DAs C. J., BHAGW ATI, S. K. DAs and SuBBA RAO JJ.) Limitation-Suit for division of moveable property by co-heir, if one for specific moveable property-" Specific moveable property", Meaning of-Exclusion from computation of time covered by execu- tion proceeding-Indian Limitation Act, r908 (9 of r908), Arts. 49, r20, s. r4(r). The words " specific moveable property " occurring in art. 49 of the Indian Limitation Act can mean only such specific items of moveable property in respect of which the plaintiff is entitled to claim immediate possession in specie from the defen- dant who has either wrongfully taken or is wrongfully with- holding them from him. A suit by one heir against the others for recovery of his share of the moveable property of a deceased person is not one for a specific moveable property wrongfully taken ~uch as is con- templated by art. 49 and must, in the absence of any other speci- fic provision in the Act, be governed by art. r20 and not art. 49 of the Indian Limitation Ac!. Mohomed Raisat Ali v. Musummat Hasin Banu, (r893) L.R. 20 I.A. r55, relied on. Consequently, in a case where the decree passed upon an award, without specifying any particular G. P. Notes or dividing . them, directed the elder brother to transfer G. P. Notes of the value of Rs. r3,200 to the younger brother from out of the G. P. Notes of the total value of Rs. 26,500 left by the father in the custody of the former, and the younger brother, failing to obtain relief by way of execution of the decree, brought the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, against the elder brother for a division of the G. P. Notes and a direction on him that G. P. Notes of the value of Rs. r3,200 might be transferred to him and claimed that the entire period covered by the execution proceed- ing from its inc.eption till the final disposal by the High Court should. be excluded in computing the period of limitation : • Held, that the suit in substance was one for the division of moveable property held in joint ownership and not for possession of any specific. item of moveable property and as such was governed, not by art. 49, but by art: r20 of the Indian Limita- tion Act. Gopal Chandra Bose v. Surendra Nath Dutt, (r998) r2 C.W.N, torn, distinguished and held inapplicable, • x958 ~- Raghunath Das v. Gokal Chand and another 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] As the facts and circumstances of the case satisfied the requirements of s. r4(r) of the Indian Limitation Act in comput- ing the prescribed period of limitation the time covered by the execution proceeding from its inception till its final disposal by the High Court must be excluded. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:· Civil Appeal No. 251of1954. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 22, · 1952, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Regular First Appeal No. l/E of 1947 arising out of the judgment and decree dated July 1, 1947, of the Court of Sub- ~ Judge, Ambala in Suit No. 239 of 1946. "" Tarachand Brijmohan Lal, for the appellant. Hardayal Hardy, for respondent No. 1. 1958. May 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' Das c. J. DAS C. J.-This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree passed on April 22, 1952, by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court reversing the decree passed on ,July 1, 1947, by the First Class Subordinate Judge, Ambala in favour of the plaintiff and dismissing the plaintiff's Suit No. 239 of 1946. The appeal has been preferred on the strength of a certificate granted by the Division Bench on Deeem- ber 19, 1952. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal m9,y now be shortly stated: One Lala Beni Pershad died in the year 1910 leaving him surviving his widow Mst. Daropadi (defendant respondent No. 2) and two sons by her, namely, Gokul Chand (defendant respondent No. 1) and Raghunath Das (plaintiff appellant) who was then a minor. Lala Beni Pershad left considerable moveable properties including many G. P. Notes and also various im~oveable properties including agricul- tural land, gardens and houses. After his death the family continued to be joint until disputes and differ- ences arose between the two brothers in 1934. Even- tually on November 12, 1934, the two brot.hers executed an agreement referring their disputes relating to the partition of the family properties to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.