2018 (3) TMI 1496 - SC - Indian Laws

Time Limitation - whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has no impact in view of the provisions contained in Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 and, if so, will it be applicable in the facts of this case? Held that - There is no dispute that the issue of suit being barred by limitation will have to be answered with reference to the special law as applicable i.e. the 1920 Act. The said Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law governing the limitation of suits relating to alienations of ancestral immovable property and appointments of heirs by persons who follow custom in the area to which the Act would apply. Section 8 of the 1920 Act postulates that when any person obtains a decree declaring that an alienation of ancestral immovable property or appointment of an heir is not binding on him according to custom, the decree shall enure for the benefit of all persons entitled to impeach the alienation or the appointment of an heir. For such a declaratory suit, the limitation is provided in the schedule. Article 2 of the Schedule also envisages that the period of limitation for a suit for possession of ancestral immovable property which has been alienated, on the ground that alienation is not binding on the plaintiff according to custom, inter alia, within three years from the date the declaratory decree is obtained. As in the present case, even though the declaratory judgment was pronounced by the Court in the previous suit on 20th August, 1963, on the basis of compromise entered into by Mohinder Singh (original plaintiff) and Rura Singh (original defendant), that declaration could be given effect to only after the death of Ujjagar Singh. The decree as passed was enforceable only thereafter. Suffice it to observe that the decree sheet having been made ready on 19th August, 1972 and the suit for possession filed three years thereafter on 11th June, 1974, was thus within the prescribed period of limitation in terms of Article 2(b) of the Schedule to the 1920 Act. A proper approach will have to be adopted and the provisions will have to be interpreted so as to advance cause of action rather than abort the proceedings, inasmuch as the section is intended to provide relief against bar of limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong forum. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were right in decreeing the suit in favour of the original plaintiff (predecessor of the appellants) by rejecting the objection regarding the suit being barred by limitation - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the context of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920; Date of obtaining a declaratory decree; Calculation of limitation period for filing a suit for possession; Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of time during which execution proceedings were pursued.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the 1963 Act) applies in light of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 (the 1920 Act). Section 14 of the 1963 Act allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide pursuing a civil proceeding in a court that lacks jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Section 14 is applicable because Section 5 of the 1920 Act explicitly incorporates Sections 4 to 25 of the 1963 Act. Additionally, Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act supports this applicability unless expressly excluded by the special law, which is not the case here.

2. Date of Obtaining a Declaratory Decree:
The Court analyzed the expression "the declaratory decree is obtained" in Article 2(b) of the Schedule to the 1920 Act. The Court held that this expression means the date on which the decree is drawn or prepared, not merely the date of the declaratory judgment. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind using "obtained" includes the formal preparation of the decree, which in this case was on 19th August 1972.

3. Calculation of Limitation Period for Filing a Suit for Possession:
The Court addressed whether the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the declaratory judgment (20th August 1963) or the date of the decree preparation (19th August 1972). The Court concluded that the limitation period should commence from the date the decree was prepared, i.e., 19th August 1972. Thus, the suit filed on 11th June 1974 was within the three-year limitation period specified in Article 2(b) of the 1920 Act.

4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for Exclusion of Time:
The Court considered whether the time spent by the plaintiff in pursuing execution proceedings could be excluded under Section 14 of the 1963 Act. The Court found that the plaintiff had bona fide pursued execution petitions, which were dismissed due to technical reasons and not on merits. The Court held that the time from 14th January 1971 (death of Ujjagar Singh) to 2nd February 1974 (dismissal of the third execution petition) should be excluded. Consequently, the suit filed on 11th June 1974 was within the limitation period.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Court affirmed that the suit for possession was within the limitation period, considering the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the 1963 Act and the date of decree preparation. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.