Bhagvant Ramchandra Vs. Kaji Mahamad Abas - Court Judgment
|Case Number|| Civil Reference No. 11 of 1911|
|Judge|| N.G. Chandavarkar and ;Batchelor, JJ.|
|Respondent||Kaji Mahamad Abas|
.....(ix of 1908), section 9-civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 48-minor-extension of time-decree-execution.;a decree was obtained on the 17th february 1898; and the decree-holder applied in 1901 for its execution. he having died leaving a minor son, further applications to execute the decree were filed through the minor's guardian all within time. the minor attained majority in 1910. he then applied for extension of the period of twelve years for the execution of the decree prescribed by section 48 of the civil procedure code, 1908, on the ground of his minority between 1901-1910 :-;that the claim was barred by the law of limitation prescribed by section 48 of the civil procedure code, 1908, since once the limitation began to run from the date of the decree, the twelve years..........the date of the decree, the twelve years' period must be computed from that day. the point is practically decided by this court in jivraj v. babaji ilr (1904) 29 bom. 68. with this answer the reference must be returned to the subordinate judge.
1. We are indebted to each of the pleaders for appearing in this reference as amicus curiae. Mr. Nilkanth has placed before us all the available authorities on the point and argued the Reference in support of the plaintiff. But we are of opinion that our answer to the Reference must be that the claim is barred by the law of limitation prescribed in Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We agree with the Subordinate Judge in the view he has taken, namely, that the decree having been obtained by the plaintiff's father and time having once begun to run under Section 9 of the Limitation Act, no subsequent disability, that is. the minority of the plaintiff, could arrest it. Once the limitation began to run from the date of the decree, the twelve years' period must be computed from that day. The point is practically decided by this Court in Jivraj v. Babaji ILR (1904) 29 Bom. 68. With this answer the Reference must be returned to the Subordinate Judge.