Skip to content


Saroda Pershad Ganguli and anr. Vs. Pahali Mahanti and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1884)ILR10Cal913
AppellantSaroda Pershad Ganguli and anr.
RespondentPahali Mahanti and anr.
Cases ReferredMaharajah Joy Mungul Singh v. Lall Rung Pal Singh
Excerpt:
period of limitation, computation of - section 32, act x of 1859--section 29, beng. act viii of 1859. - .....x of 1859, where it is said, 'the suit shall be instituted within three months from the end of the bengal year or of the month of jeyt of the fusli or willayutee year on account of which such enhanced rent is claimed,' the word 'months' means months of the english calendar, or in orissa months of the willayutee year.2. it has been held by this court that in the corresponding section, section 29 of the bengal act viii of 1869, english calendar months are meant. see mahomed elahee btiksh v. brojo kishore sen i.l.r. 4 cal. 497 and the cases there cited. the construction of that act, however, is governed by the bengal general clauses act, bengal act v of 1867. the act now in question is unaffected either by that act or by the similar act of the governor-general in council, i of 1868. but the.....
Judgment:

Wilson, J.

1. The question raised in this appeal is, whether in Section 32 of Act X of 1859, where it is said, 'the suit shall be instituted within three months from the end of the Bengal year or of the month of Jeyt of the Fusli or Willayutee year on account of which such enhanced rent is claimed,' the word 'months' means months of the English calendar, or in Orissa months of the Willayutee year.

2. It has been held by this Court that in the corresponding section, Section 29 of the Bengal Act VIII of 1869, English calendar months are meant. See Mahomed Elahee Btiksh v. Brojo Kishore Sen I.L.R. 4 Cal. 497 and the cases there cited. The construction of that Act, however, is governed by the Bengal General Clauses Act, Bengal Act V of 1867. The Act now in question is unaffected either by that Act or by the similar Act of the Governor-General in Council, I of 1868. But the rule we have to construe is one of limitation; and in Limitation Acts the periods of limitation are reckoned according to the English calendar unless a different intention is expressed Maharajah Joy Mungul Singh v. Lall Rung Pal Singh 13 W.R. 183 : 4 B.L.R. Ap. 53. In the present Act there are many sections in which periods of limitation are given; as for instance, the very next section, Section 33, and Sections 90 and 93. In these there is nothing to indicate that any calendar other than the English is intended. The section now in question must, we think, be construed in the same way, unless there are clear reasons for adopting another construction. It is true that in this section, the Bengal, Fusli, and Willayutee years and months are mentioned and used for fixing the commencement of the three years' period of limitation in the first part of the section, and of three months in the second. But we do not think this a sufficient reason for reading the words of limitation themselves in a different sense from those which bear like words in other parts of this Act, and in other enactments of similar scope.

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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