1972 (1) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment of Madras High Court setting aside judgment and decree of Principal Subordinate Judge on grounds of limitation and Section 14 of Indian Limitation Act 1908.

Analysis:
1. Background of the Case: The properties in question were situated in the erstwhile State of Travancore and were subject to revenue sales. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of these properties, alleging that the sales were set aside without notice to the purchasers. A suit was filed against defendants 1-5 for a declaration regarding the jurisdiction of setting aside the sales without conforming to the law.

2. Government as a Necessary Party: Initially, the District Munsiff's Court held that the Government was not a necessary party in the suit. However, the High Court of Travancore Cochin later held that the Government was essential, and the suit was dismissed for failure to implead the Government. The plaintiff then filed a similar suit after giving a notice to the Government under Section 80 of the CPC.

3. Limitation Issue: The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not barred by limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the plaintiff was entitled to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the earlier suit. However, the Madras High Court disagreed, stating that the plaintiff was not entitled to exclude the time as the auction purchasers never took possession of the properties, and the plaintiff did not act in good faith in prosecuting the previous suit.

4. Section 14 of the Limitation Act: The High Court found that the plaintiff did not act in good faith in prosecuting the previous suit and appeal. It was noted that the plaintiff persisted in proceeding with the suit without impleading the Government, despite objections raised by the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff's actions were deliberate and not based on ignorance of the law or a bona fide mistake, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

5. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no justification for the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in this case. The court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, emphasizing that the plaintiff's actions did not meet the criteria for excluding the time spent in prosecuting the earlier suit, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.