1949 (10) TMI 5 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act to the periods of limitation prescribed for agriculturists under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act.
2. Whether Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies to special or local laws like the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act.
3. Interpretation of the term "prescribed period of limitation" under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act:
The primary contention in the appeal was whether the suit was barred by limitation due to the endorsement dated 7th September 1940, given that Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act do not apply to the periods of limitation prescribed for agriculturists under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act. The court noted that the law laid down in 22 Mysore Law Journal 27 was against the appellant's contention. The appellant argued that the decision in Kishore Lal Stores v. Jagannath, which was the basis for the decision in 22 Mys. L.J. 27, had been overruled by a later Full Bench decision in Janardhan Eknath v. Ganesh Sadashiv. However, the court found that the decision in 22 Mys. L.J. 27 still stood, and Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act were applicable to suits under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act.

2. Applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act:
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that where any special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from that in the Limitation Act, the provisions of Sections 4, 9 to 18, and 22 shall apply only if not expressly excluded by the special or local law. The court acknowledged that the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act is a special law. However, it was debated whether this Act prescribed a period of limitation different from the Limitation Act. The court analyzed the provisions and concluded that the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act did not contain a complete body of provisions regarding limitation and thus, the general provisions of the Limitation Act, including Sections 19 and 20, were applicable.

3. Interpretation of "Prescribed Period of Limitation":
The court examined whether the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act prescribed any period of limitation different from that in the Limitation Act. It was noted that Section 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act substituted the period of limitation mentioned in the Limitation Act with a period of six years for certain suits. The court referred to previous decisions, including Keshav Krishna v. Bhagwan Sambhu and Kishore Lal Stores v. Jagannath, and concluded that the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act did not prescribe an independent and self-contained period of limitation. Instead, it modified the Limitation Act to some extent. Therefore, the court held that the general provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 20, were applicable to suits under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the view that Section 20 of the Limitation Act is applicable to suits mentioned in Section 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act. The judgment emphasized the principle of stare decisis and the importance of maintaining consistency in legal interpretations to avoid confusion and unsettlement. The appeal was dismissed, and the previous judgments of the lower courts were upheld.