1918 (12) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of suit - this suit was dismissed as barred by limitation - Article 97 in the second schedule to the Limitation Act - Held that - The period of limitation prescribed by Article 97 is three years, and the time from which the period begins to run is the date of the failure of consideration - The suit was instituted on the 14th September, 1908, and it is alleged in the plaint that the cause of action arose on 3rd August, 1906, the date of the appellate decree in connection with suit No. 248 of 1904, and subsequently on 28th August, the date of decree in the three suits Nos. 262, 273 and 277 of 1904. These are the decrees already mentioned, and the case here made, is that it was the reversal of the sale that was the cause of action. There may be circumstances in which a failure to get or retain possession may justly be regarded as the time from which the limitation period should run, but that is not the case here. The quality of the possession acquired by the present purchaser excludes the idea that the starting point is to be sought in a disturbance of possession or in any event other than the challenge to the sale and the negation of the purchaser s title to the entirety of what he bought involved in the decree of the 24th August, 1905. This appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Summary

Issues:

1. Limitation period for a suit seeking recovery of purchase money under Bengal Patni Taluqs Regulation, 1819.
2. Determination of the starting point for the limitation period.
3. Indemnification of purchaser under Section 14 of the Regulation.
4. Applicability of different Articles of the Limitation Act to various claims.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a suit where the purchaser seeks to recover purchase money under the Bengal Patni Taluqs Regulation, 1819, after the sale was reversed. The main issue revolves around the limitation period for such a suit. The court delves into the starting point for the limitation period, considering whether it began from the date of the original decree reversing the sale or the appellate decree. The court emphasizes that under Indian law, an original decree is not suspended by an appeal, leading to the conclusion that the limitation period starts from the date of the first decree reversing the sale.

Regarding indemnification of the purchaser under Section 14 of the Regulation, the court notes the imperative duty of the court to ensure indemnity against all loss to the purchaser. It highlights the necessity of framing a distinct issue to determine the purchaser's right to indemnity and emphasizes the importance of a conclusive decision on this matter. The court criticizes the failure of previous courts to apply Section 14 effectively in determining the purchaser's right to indemnification.

Furthermore, the judgment addresses the applicability of different Articles of the Limitation Act to various claims, specifically discussing the claim related to patni rents paid subsequent to the sale. The court rejects the argument that this claim is not barred by limitation, stating that even if governed by a different Article, it would still be time-barred. The court affirms the High Court's decision that no suit for this amount would lie.

In conclusion, the court dismisses the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts, and advises His Majesty accordingly. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the limitation period, indemnification of the purchaser, and the applicability of the Limitation Act to different claims under the Bengal Patni Taluqs Regulation, 1819.