1914 (4) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of law stated is whether the decision of the majority in the case of Manjhoori Bibi v. Akel Mahumed 17 C.W.N. 889 has been affected by the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal ( I.L.R. 1913) All. 227 L.R. 40 IndAp 74. The actual decision of the majority in Manjhoori Bibi's Case 17 C.W.N. 889. was that the special rule of limitation extended to under-raiyats by the amendment in 1908 of the 3rd Article in the 3rd Schedule of the Bengal Tenancy Act did not apply, where the dispossession was in 1898 and the suit for recovery of possession was instituted on the 25th of August, 1908. 2. The judgment of the Privy Council in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal ) I.L.R.(1913 All. 227 L.R. 40 IndAp 74 was concerned not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ruction and effect of a different Act that was under consideration, the Privy Council judgment cannot be regarded as a direct authority on the Act not before it. 3. On the contrary the essential conditions of the two cases are so distinct that in our opinion it cannot be said that the earlier decision is, in relation to the circumstances of this case, affected by the judgment of the Privy Council. It is an established axiom of construction that though procedure may be regulated by the Act for the time being in force, still the intention to take away a vested right without compensation or any saving, is not to be imputed to the Legislature unless it be expressed in unequivocal terms Cf. The Commissioner of Public Works (Cape Colony) v. Lo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yed. The law as amended may regulate the procedure in suits in which the plaintiff could comply with its provisions, but cannot (in our opinion) govern suits where such compliance was from the first impossible. The effect is to regulate not to confiscate. There are thus two positions; where in accordance with its provisions a suit could be brought after the passing of the amendment, it may be that the amendment would apply the where it could not, then the amendment would have no application. The facts in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal (I.L.R. 1913) All. 227 did not involve the second of these positions, and we therefore hold that the decision of the majority in Manjhoori Bibi v. Akel Mahumed 17 C.W.N. 889. L.R. 40 IndAp 74. so far as it relates t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X