Appaji Bharmappa Umrani Vs. Thalegauda Satyappa Umrani - Court Judgment
|Case Number||Second Appeal No. 661 of 1913|
|Judge||Basil Scott, Kt. C.J. and ;Beaman, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1914Bom311; (1914)16BOMLR661|
|Appellant||Appaji Bharmappa Umrani|
|Respondent||Thalegauda Satyappa Umrani|
dekkhan agriculturists' relief act (xvii of 1879), section 48-conciliator' certificate-exclusion of time in obtaining the certificate-mode of com putation.;the plaintiff's suit for possession of certain land under the mamlatdars' courts act (bom. act ii of 1906) was dismissed on the 28th september 1906. he applied to a conciliator for a certificate under chap. vi of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act, on the 24th september 1909, and obtained it on the 24th august 1910. he filed the present suit to recover possession of the land on the 29th august 1910 a question arose whether the suit was filed in time:-;that reckoning the period to be excluded under section 48 of the dekkhan agriculturists relief act by days, the suit was filed out of time by three days. - .....under section 48. if those days are excluded the plaintiff is out of time by three days. the suit is therefore barred, without reference to the question whether he can file the suit on a monday if the time expired on a sunday. we, therefore, allow the appeal and dismiss the suit with costs throughout upon the plaintiff.
Basil Scott, Kt. C.J.
1. We are of opinion that this suit is barred by limitation. The Mamlatdar's order was passed in favour of the defendant for possession on the 28th of September 1906, and from the date of that order the plaintiff had three years to sue. He did not, however, sue within three years, but just before that period expired applied to the conciliator for a certificate under Chapter vi of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. His application was made on the 24th of September 1909, and the conciliator's certificate was issued on the 24th of August 1910. Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act says:-' In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any such suit or application the time intervening between the application made by the plaintiff under Section 39 and the grant of the certificate under Section 46 shall be excluded.' We have recently held, and it is also conceded in argument, that the time to be excluded must be reckoned by days, and the days between the day of the application and the day of the grant of a certificate are therefore to be excluded under Section 48. If those days are excluded the plaintiff is out of time by three days. The suit is therefore barred, without reference to the question whether he can file the suit on a Monday if the time expired on a Sunday. We, therefore, allow the appeal and dismiss the suit with costs throughout upon the plaintiff.