Skip to content


Kashinath Rajaram Somani Vs. Govind Shankar Jinsiwalla - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 939 of 1928
Judge
Reported in(1930)32BOMLR1299
AppellantKashinath Rajaram Somani
RespondentGovind Shankar Jinsiwalla
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
indian limitation act (ix of 1908), see 6 - minor decree-holder-application for execution-guardian can apply at any time during minority even if the previous application is more than three year old.;the guardian of a minor decree-holder can apply to execute the decree at any time during the minority, irrespective of the fact that the previous application was more than three years old.;mon mohun buksee v. gunga soondery dabee (1882) i.l.r. 9 cal. 181 lalit mohun miner v. janokey nath roy (1893) i.l.r. 20 cal. 714; norendra nath pahari v. bhupendra narain roy (1895) i.l.r. 23 cal. 374; and zamir hasan v. sundar (1899) i.l.r. 22 all. 199, followed. - .....the darkhast was time-barred. the judgment-debtor appeals.3. the question whether the court of wards is a trustee or a manager is irrelevant. under section 6 the last date for the decree-holder to apply was within three years after attaining majority. it has been held by the courts in a series of cases such as mon mohun buksee v. gunga soondery dabee ilr (1882) cal. 181, lolit mohun misser v. janoky nath roy ilr (1893) cal. 714, nwendva nath pahari v. shupendra narain roy ilr (1895) cal. 374, and zamir hasan v. sundar ilr (1899) all. 199, that the guardian of a minor can also apply in execution at any time during the minority, even though his previous application is more than three years old.4. in view of these decisions the order of the lower appellate court is correct and the.....
Judgment:

Madgavkar, J.

1. The question in this appeal is whether the darkhasfc is barred by limitation.

2. The decree-holder is a minor represented by the Court of Wards. The present darkhast is more than three years after the previous darkhast. The trial Court held that the Court of Wards was a trustee for the minor and that Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply. The lower appellate Court held that the Court of Wards was a manager and Section 6 applied and therefore the darkhast was time-barred. The judgment-debtor appeals.

3. The question whether the Court of Wards is a trustee or a manager is irrelevant. Under Section 6 the last date for the decree-holder to apply was within three years after attaining majority. It has been held by the Courts in a series of cases such as Mon Mohun Buksee v. Gunga Soondery Dabee ILR (1882) Cal. 181, Lolit Mohun Misser v. Janoky Nath Roy ILR (1893) Cal. 714, Nwendva Nath Pahari v. Shupendra Narain Roy ILR (1895) Cal. 374, and Zamir Hasan v. Sundar ILR (1899) All. 199, that the guardian of a minor can also apply in execution at any time during the minority, even though his previous application is more than three years old.

4. In view of these decisions the order of the lower appellate Court is correct and the appeal must be with costs.


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