9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by UNTWALIA, J. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the Bombay High Court maintained the dismissal in appeal by the plaintiffs. The facts are a bit complicated. For the disposal of the present appeal, only a few of them need be stated in a narrow compass. One Ambabai, wife of Chintamanrao Ghatge purchased lands mentioned at items 1A to 1E in the plaint on the. 3rd of December, 1896 in the name of the deity Shri Vithal Rakhumai Dev. Lands at IF, 1G and 1H were endowed by Ambabai to the deity by a deed of endowment executed in January or February 1905. Udder this deed of endowment, one Pandurang Babaji Pawar was appointed as the Vehivatdar (Manager) and one Bala Appa Yadava was appointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Commissioner, Maharashtra defendant no. 7. The suit was instituted under sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950-hereinafter called the Act, to recover possession of the suit properties from defendants 1 to 6. Property at 1 E have been sold by plaintiff no. 1 on the 17th of September, 1947 to original defendant nos. 2 and 3. The sales made in the year 1905 as also in the year 1947 were attacked as being void and not binding on the deity. Although specifically the deity was not impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit, as observed by the District Judge, Sitara who tried the suit in the first in-stance, to all intents and purposes the suit was by the deity and the two Plaintiffs. Defendants contested the suit on several ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not barred- in the year 1955 when section 52A came into force. (3) That in any view of the matter, claim regarding 1E of the property was obviously not barred in the year 1955 and could not be held to be so in suit instituted in the year 1961 after coming into force of section 52A. Learned counsel for the respondents combated all the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. In our judgment, there is no substance in any of the points urged on behalf of the appellant. The possession- of the purchasers was adverse in respect of all the properties at 1 A to 1 D and 1 F to 1 H from the very beginning. By such adverse possession those who had come in possession of these properties had acquired an indefeasible title under the Indian Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim and giving life to a dead horse. If the claim was not barred and the right to the property was not extinguished when Section 52A came into force, then a suit instituted thereafter could not be defeated under any of the Articles of the Limitation Act of 1908 or even of the new Limitation Act of 1963. In express terms it over-rides the provisions of the Limitation Act_ including the provision in section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908. But then the over-riding effect of section 52A will have its play and operation, only if, by the time it came into force, section 28 had not extinguished the right to the property in question. Otherwise not. In Mahant Biseshwar Dass v. Sashinath Jhan and others(A.I.R. 1943, Patna, 289) a Bench of the Patna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Board ruled that in regard to a, suit brought on 29th January, 1926 "the question whether it was then barred by limitation must depend upon the law of limitation which was applicable to the suit at. that time." The provisions of the Amendment Act of 1929 which had come into force on the 1 st of January, 1929 were held to be inapplicable. Of course, even in the light of the old section it was held that the suit was not barred by limitation and the decree of the High Court was affirmed. Krishnan J. in the case of Balram Chunnilal and others v. Durgalal Shivnarain(A.I.R. 1968 Madhya Pradesh, 81.) expressed a view identical to the one expressed by the Patna High Court (vide end of paragraph 36 page 86 column 10. Mr. Datar placed reliance upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty at 1E now, we must confess at the outset that during the course of argument at one time, we thought that this property having been sold in the year 1947 by plaintiff no. 1, the right to the property was not extinguished under section 28 of the Limitation Act in the year 1955. Therefore, although the suit was instituted in the year 1961, beyond 12 years of 1947, it would perhaps be saved under section 52A from the bar of limitation. But on a closer scrutiny and on appreciation of the argument of the other side in the light of the finding recorded by the High Court, we did not feel persuaded to give relief to the appellants even in regard to property at 1E. The High Court has found that plaintiff no. 1 had acquired, title to property 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
