Skip to content


Bharma Shidappa Bhore Vs. Balaram Sakharam Gujar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 80 of 1917
Judge
Reported inAIR1918Bom72; (1918)20BOMLR836; 47Ind.Cas.639
AppellantBharma Shidappa Bhore
RespondentBalaram Sakharam Gujar
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....not brought within six years of 1901.;shrinivas v. hanmant (1899) i.l.r. 24 bom. 260 : 1 bom. l.r. 799, followed. - - the plaintiff's adoption was challenged in 1901 and his rights were clearly interfered with as a result of that litigation. it is, therefore, in my opinion, clearly a case within the principle of jagadamba's case (jagadamba choudhrari v. he failed to do so ;and, inasmuch as he admittedly cannot succeed in this litigation without establishing the validity of his adoption, it follows that his present suit is out of time and ought to have been dismissed, as it was dismissed by the lower courts with all costs upon the plaintiff......court in shrinivas v. hanmant i.l.r. (1899) bom. 260 f.b. and although there have been two later decisions of the privy council in the cases of thakur tirbhuwan bahadur singh v. raja bameshar bakhsh singh (1900) l.r. 33 indap 156 : 8 bom. l.r. 722 and umar khan v. niaz-ud-din khan (1011) l.r. 39 indap 19 : 14 bom. l.r. 182 which may appear to conflict with the principle of jagadamba's case, it was pointed out by a bench of this court in the case of shrinivas sarjerav v. balwant venkatesh i.l.r. (1913) bom. 513 : 15 bom. l.r. 533 that those decisions left the authority of shrinivas v. hanmant, as far as this court is concerned, quite unshaken. i entirely concur with that view. having carefully considered those decisions of the privy council, it is clear that neither of them professes to.....
Judgment:

Beaman, J.

1. In my opinion the Courts below were right in holding this suit barred. The plaintiff's adoption was challenged in 1901 and his rights were clearly interfered with as a result of that litigation. That is plain from the frame of the present suit in which he seeks to have it declared that he is not bound by the decrees in the former suit. It is, therefore, in my opinion, clearly a case within the principle of Jagadamba's case (Jagadamba Choudhrari v. Dakhina Mohun . That case was made the foundation of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Shrinivas v. Hanmant I.L.R. (1899) Bom. 260 F.B. and although there have been two later decisions of the Privy Council in the cases of Thakur Tirbhuwan Bahadur Singh v. Raja Bameshar Bakhsh Singh (1900) L.R. 33 IndAp 156 : 8 Bom. L.R. 722 and Umar Khan v. Niaz-ud-din Khan (1011) L.R. 39 IndAp 19 : 14 Bom. L.R. 182 which may appear to conflict with the principle of Jagadamba's case, it was pointed out by a Bench of this Court in the case of Shrinivas Sarjerav v. Balwant Venkatesh I.L.R. (1913) Bom. 513 : 15 Bom. L.R. 533 that those decisions left the authority of Shrinivas v. Hanmant, as far as this Court is concerned, quite unshaken. I entirely concur with that view. Having carefully considered those decisions of the Privy Council, it is clear that neither of them professes to overrule Jagadamba's case, although without any reference to it there is one sentence in the later Privy Council case which appears to conflict with it. However that may be, we are bound by the authority of our own High Court. Under that authority the plaintiff' was bound to bring his suit within six years to establish his adoption. He failed to do so ; and, inasmuch as he admittedly cannot succeed in this litigation without establishing the validity of his adoption, it follows that his present suit is out of time and ought to have been dismissed, as it was dismissed by the lower Courts with all costs upon the plaintiff. I think this appeal must likewise be dismissed with all costs upon the plaintiff.

Heaton, J.

2. I concur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //