9911796707
TMI Blog1924 (10) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was filed on 11th December 1919. The application to bring the 4th defendant on record was made on 23rd April 1920 and the order on that petition was passed on 1st May 1920. Before the order was made 4th defendant had alienated the property to the 5th defendant and the alienation was on 15th March 1920. The application to bring the 5th defendant on record was made on 14th June 1920. The application was ordered on 24th June 1920. The plaintiff, who sues as reversioner of one Thanjammal, claims this property as the property of Thanjammal. Thanjammal died on 12th May 1908. The suit was no doubt, within twelve years from the date of Thanjammal's death, but the suit was only against three persons. Fourth defendant was only subsequently adde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made a party to the suit would not enable the plaintiff to proceed against a certain item of property which on the date when the 4th defendant was made a party did not belong to him. But it is very seriously urged by Mr. Seshachari that it is quite sufficient to show that the party who was subsequently added as a party has derived title during the pendency of the suit. This overlooks the plain principle that a suit can only relate to the property which is in the possession of, or claimed to be the property of, the defendant. The suit cannot possibly cover or relate to property which on the date of the plaint did not belong to the defendants on record. It is unnecessary in this view to consider the various cases relied upon by Mr. Seshachari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party; The language of the section being clear that the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted when a person is made a party, can it be said that the limitation period ceases to run the moment an application is made? The mere fact that an application is made would not stop the running of the period of limitation. It is only when a new party is added to a pending suit, limitation will cease to run. It is urged by Mr. Seshachari that, if he files a plaint within time the mere fact that the defendant has not been served would not in any way bar his right to sue. No doubt in the case of a plaint the period of lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tually brought on record as a party. That being clear from the wording of Section 22(1) I think it unnecessary to refer in detail to the cases relied upon by Mr. Seshachari. Ramkrishna Moreshwar v. Ramabai 9 Ind. Dec. 19 and Rampartab Samrathi v. Foolibai 10 Ind. Dec. 1082 have no application to the present case. When the wording of the section is very clear it is not light that a Court should try to get round it. In this case, granting for argument's sake that the order of the Court is sufficient to make the 5th defendant a party, the order was made only on 24th June 1920, i.e., after the lapse of 12 years. It is unnecessary to consider the question whether a mere order to make the defendant party is sufficient to make him a party. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
