9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Question of Limitation 2. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 3. Presumption of Death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 4. Preliminary Objection regarding the Maintainability of Appeals Detailed Analysis: 1. Question of Limitation: The primary issue in these appeals was whether the suits filed by the plaintiffs were within the prescribed period of limitation. The plaintiffs had to prove that their suits were filed within three years of the accrual of the right to sue, which, according to them, occurred upon the presumed death of Kishan Singh after he had not been heard of for seven years since August 15, 1945. The Court emphasized that under Article 2 of the Schedule annexed to the Punjab Limitation (Customs) Act, 1920, the plaintiffs had to bring their suits within three years of the accrual of the right to sue, which meant within three years of the death of Kishan Singh. The plaintiffs failed to prove the exact date of Kishan Singh's death, which was crucial for establishing that the suits were within the limitation period. 2. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act: The plaintiffs argued that the time spent in prosecuting previous suits should be excluded under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in good faith in prosecuting a suit in a court that is unable to entertain it due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the words "or other cause of a like nature" had to be read ejusdem generis with "defect of jurisdiction," and the previous suits were dismissed because they were premature, not due to a defect of jurisdiction. Hence, Section 14(1) was not applicable. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the plaintiffs could not benefit from Section 14(1) as the previous suits were not dismissed due to a defect of jurisdiction or other analogous cause. 3. Presumption of Death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act: The plaintiffs contended that Kishan Singh should be presumed dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act as he had not been heard of for seven years. The Court noted that while Section 108 allows for the presumption of death after a person has not been heard of for seven years, it does not presume the exact time of death. The burden of proving the specific time of death within those seven years lies on the person who claims a right based on that fact. The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of the exact time of Kishan Singh's death, which was necessary to establish that the suits were filed within the limitation period. 4. Preliminary Objection regarding the Maintainability of Appeals: The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeals were untenable due to an amendment in Section 7 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, introduced by the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973, which had retrospective effect. The Supreme Court dismissed this objection, citing the savings clause in Section 4 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, which protected rights to contest alienations made before the Act came into force. Since the alienation in question occurred in 1885, it was not affected by the 1920 Act or its 1973 amendment. Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Division Bench of the High Court that the suits were time-barred. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the exact date of Kishan Singh's death, which was essential to establish that the suits were filed within the limitation period. Additionally, the plaintiffs could not benefit from Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act as the previous suits were not dismissed due to a defect of jurisdiction or other analogous cause. The Court also dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals, citing the savings clause in the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920.
|
