Skip to content


Kanhai Lal Vs. Madan Mohan Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Property
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR17All284
AppellantKanhai Lal
RespondentMadan Mohan Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
.....schedule ii, articles 57, 120 - limitation--loan on security of moveable property--suit to recover money by sale of property pledged and also from the defendant personally. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9..........which had been pledged with him. the prayer in the plaint, however, is not merely for recovery of money due by sale of the property pledged. there, was a further prayer for the recovery of the balance due after sale of the jewelry by proceedings against the persons of the defendants, now appellants. the claim was instituted more than three years from the date when the money had been borrowed and the jewelry pledged. the court of first instance held that the suit was one governed by article 80 of the second schedule of the limitation act of 1877 and dismissed the suit. the subordinate judge was of opinion that there was no express article in the limitation act applicable to the suit, and therefore applied article 120. the question before us was considered by the high court at calcutta in.....
Judgment:

Knox and Aikman, JJ.

1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate judge of Bareilly in appeal remanding a case under Section 562 of the Civil Procedure Code for trial on the merits. The claim as laid by the plaintiff was to enforce payment of money which had been borrowed from him -upon certain jewels which had been pledged with him. The prayer in the plaint, however, is not merely for recovery of money due by sale of the property pledged. There, was a further prayer for the recovery of the balance due after sale of the jewelry by proceedings against the persons of the defendants, now appellants. The claim was instituted more than three years from the date when the money had been borrowed and the jewelry pledged. The Court of First Instance held that the suit was one governed by Article 80 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877 and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that there was no express article in the Limitation Act applicable to the suit, and therefore applied Article 120. The question before us was considered by the High Court at Calcutta in Nim Chand Baboo v. Jagabundhu Chose I.L.R. 22 Cal. 21. The learned Judges who decided that case were of opinion that, so far as the plaint might pray for a decree for the money lent against the defendant personally, it was barred under Article 57; but so far as the plaintiff sought to enforce his charge against the property pledged, the suit fell, not within Article 57, but within Article 120 of the schedule and was therefore not barred. We agree in the opinion there expressed. While, therefore, we dismissed this appeal, we so far modify the order of the Lower Appellate Court as to direct the Court of First Instance to dispose of the suit on the merits with regard to the remarks made above. The respondents will g6t their costs.


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