Skip to content


Oudh Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Collector of Etah and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All625
AppellantOudh Behari Lal and ors.
RespondentCollector of Etah and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 224 that at the end of twelve years a good title was conferred on the defendant and so even if the plaintiffs had a right of suit they could not remove the good title conferred on the defendant. this good title also is the corresponding effect of the right to the property being extinguished by determination of the period of limitation to any person instituting a suit......under the provisions of section 28, limitation act. he however did not remember that two months notice was necessary to the court of wards and the benefit of that time has to be given to the plaintiffs. in computing the period of limitation; prescribed for any suit of which notice has been given in accordance with the requirements of any enactment for the time being in force the period of such notice shall be excluded. the defendant is a ward of court and under the local court of wards act a notice of two months is necessary to the court of wards before a suit can be instituted. the plaintiffs were therefore entitled, to bring a suit within twelve years and two months.2. the learned govern meat advocate argued on the authority of gossain dass chunder v. issur chunder nath.....
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. Obviously the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has made a slip in overlooking the provisions of Section. 15 (2), Limitation Act. The right to sue accrued to the plaintiffs on the death of a certain female on 10th February 1911. They instituted the suit on 9th April 1923. The lower appellate Court pointed out that as twelve years had elapsed the plaintiff's remedy was barred, presumably under the provisions of Section 28, Limitation Act. He however did not remember that two months notice was necessary to the Court of Wards and the benefit of that time has to be given to the plaintiffs. In computing the period of limitation; prescribed for any suit of which notice has been given in accordance with the requirements of any enactment for the time being in force the period of such notice shall be excluded. The defendant is a ward of Court and under the local Court of Wards Act a notice of two months is necessary to the Court of Wards before a suit can be instituted. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled, to bring a suit within twelve years and two months.

2. The learned Govern meat Advocate argued on the authority of Gossain Dass Chunder v. Issur Chunder Nath [1877] 3 Cal. 224 that at the end of twelve years a good title was conferred on the defendant and so even if the plaintiffs had a right of suit they could not remove the good title conferred on the defendant. This good title also is the corresponding effect of the right to the property being extinguished by determination of the period of limitation to any person instituting a suit. When that right is not determined a title in the trespassers cannot follow.

3. I set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and remand the appeal to it for a trial on the merits. This decision leaves open the question whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by the limitation of six months or not under Section 79, Tenancy Act, 1901. The lower appellate Court is requested to decide every point in issue between the parties and not to pass a decree after decision of any preliminary point. Costs here and here-to fore shall abide the result.


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