1983 (10) TMI 288 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act vs. Portuguese Civil Code.
3. Computation of Limitation Period.
4. Merits of the Plaintiff's Claim.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal:
The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, arguing that only one appeal was permitted under the Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Courts Act, 1965. However, the court noted the material change in law due to the High Court at Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981. Section 7(2) of this Act specifies that all proceedings transferred to the High Court at Bombay shall be disposed of as if they were entertained by that High Court. Consequently, the judgment delivered by Justice Rege was considered a judgment by a single Judge of the Bombay High Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, making the present appeal maintainable.

2. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act vs. Portuguese Civil Code:
The core issue was whether the suit was governed by Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act or Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The court examined the legislative history and noted that the Portuguese Civil Code continued in force in Goa until repealed or amended by competent legislation. The Supreme Court in Justiniano's case had held that the Portuguese Civil Code's provisions on limitation were local laws under Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and thus continued to apply. However, the court distinguished the present case by noting that the cause of action arose outside the Portuguese Civil Code, making the Indian Limitation Act applicable.

3. Computation of Limitation Period:
The court referred to Section 19 of the Limitation Act, which allows a fresh period of limitation to be computed from the time a payment is made, provided the payment is acknowledged in writing. The plaintiff claimed a payment of Rs. 5,000 was made on 15th April 1968, which was not denied by the defendant. The court found evidence in Exhibit 33, where the payment was acknowledged in the handwriting of the defendant's accountant, thereby extending the limitation period.

4. Merits of the Plaintiff's Claim:
On the merits, the trial court had decreed the suit, finding that Rs. 8,521 was due to the plaintiff. The defendant's appeal was partly allowed by the Judicial Commissioner, who remitted the issue of limitation back to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court held that the Portuguese Civil Code applied, providing a 30-year limitation period. However, the High Court disagreed, applying the Indian Limitation Act and finding the suit barred by time. Despite this, the acknowledgment of payment on 15th April 1968 under Section 19 of the Limitation Act rendered the suit within the limitation period. Therefore, the decree in favor of the plaintiff was sustained on merits.

Conclusion:
The Letters Patent appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff. The court clarified the applicability of the Indian Limitation Act over the Portuguese Civil Code for causes of action arising outside the latter, thereby providing a comprehensive analysis of the limitation period and sustaining the plaintiff's claim on merits.