Skip to content


Srinath Kur and ors. Vs. Prosunno Kumar Ghose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal934
AppellantSrinath Kur and ors.
RespondentProsunno Kumar Ghose
Cases ReferredSaroda Soondury Dossee v. Doyamoyee Dossee I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, article 140 - act ix of 1871, schedule ii, article 141--suit by reversioner for possession. - .....of the court, except in the case of saroda soondury dossee v. doyamoyee dossee i.l.r. 5 cal. 938 when the rule laid down in the full bench case abovementioned was followed.1[art. 141: period of limitation time when perioddescription of suit. limitation to run.by a remainder man, a reversioner, twelve years when his estate fallsother than a landlord or into possession.]a devisee for possession of immove-able property.
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We think that the rule which was laid down under the Limitation Act of 1859 is no longer the law under the Acts of 1871 and 1877.

2. A reversioner who succeeds to immoveable property has now twelve years to bring his suit from the time when his estate falls into possession. (See Article 1411 of the Act of 1871, and Article 140 of the Act of 1877.) Under the Act of 1859 the language was very different. The suit under that Act must have been brought within twelve years from the time when the cause of action arose; and as it was considered by the Full Bench of this Court that the cause of action arose at the time when the owner of the inheritance was first dispossessed, they held that a twelve years dispossession, which barred the owner of the inheritance for the time being (although a female), barred also the reversioner. See Nobin Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Guru Pershad Doss B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 1008 : s.c. 9 W.R. 505.

3. The provision in the present Act., as well as that in the Act of 1871, as regards remaindermen and reversioners, assimilates the law in this country to the law of England. (See 3 and 4 Will. IV, Ch. 27, Section 4). As the Subordinate Judge has decided in the plaintiffs' favour upon the merits, we think that they are entitled to a declaration of their rights, and to possession of the shares in question. They should also have their costs in all the Courts.

Prinsep, J.

4. No doubt the terms of the Limitation Acts of 1871 and 1877 are materially altered in respect of the point now before us, from the Act of 1859, on which the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Nobin Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Guru Pershad Doss B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 1008 : S.C 9 W.R. 505 proceeded; and although I do not wish to differ from the opinion of my learned colleagues, I have some hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Legislature in 1871 deliberately altered the law thus laid down in 1868. I further observe that this point has never, that I can find, been before any Division Bench of the Court, except in the case of Saroda Soondury Dossee v. Doyamoyee Dossee I.L.R. 5 Cal. 938 when the rule laid down in the Full Bench case abovementioned was followed.

1[Art. 141:

Period of limitation Time when period

Description of suit. limitation to run.

By a remainder man, a reversioner, Twelve years When his estate falls

other than a landlord or into possession.]

a devisee for possession of immove-

able property.


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