RANI KUAR MANI MANDHATA vs THE NAWAB OF MURSHIDABAD

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1918 Supreme(SC) 92

PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD PHILLIMORE, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS.
RANI KUAR MANI MANDHATA - Appellant
Versus
THE NAWAB OF MURSHIDABAD - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : Dec. 3. 1918.

Important Points

Disqualification of a proprietor under the Court of Wards Act does not constitute a legal disability under the Limitation Act; therefore, it does not suspend the limitation period for suits to recover possession of property held adversely by a third party.

Subject

Civil Law - Property Law

Act Referred

COURT OF WARDS ACT: S.6(a), S.27

Headnote

(A) Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Articles 142 and 144 - Court of Wards Act, 1879 - Section 6(a) - Disqualified proprietor - Limitation period - Whether the status of a disqualified proprietor under the Court of Wards Act constitutes a legal disability that suspends the running of time for limitation purposes - Possession of property by a third party on the strength of a title transfer - Limitation period of 12 years - Disqualification under the Court of Wards Act is not a recognized legal disability under the Limitation Act.

(B) Limitation - Adverse possession - Where a third party obtains possession of property through a transfer and continues such possession adversely to the owner for a period exceeding the statutory limit, the suit for recovery is barred by limitation, regardless of whether the owner was a disqualified proprietor under statutory management.

Facts of the case:
The property of a deceased was taken into charge by the Court of Wards after the proprietors were declared disqualified under the relevant Act. During this period, portions of the property were sold and transferred to third parties, who obtained possession. After the Court of Wards withdrew its charge, the surviving proprietor filed a suit for declaration and possession, challenging the validity of the transfers.

Findings of Court:
The suit regarding the property transferred in 1890 was barred by limitation as the purchaser had been in possession for over 21 years. The status of the plaintiff as a disqualified proprietor did not stop the limitation clock.

Issues: Whether the suit for possession of property was barred by limitation and whether the disqualification of the proprietor under the Court of Wards Act acted as a legal disability to suspend the limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disqualification under Section 6(a) of the Court of Wards Act is not one of the legal disabilities recognized by the Limitation Act that would entitle a person to an extended period of limitation or suspend the running of time. Once a third party obtains adverse possession on the strength of a title, the statutory period for recovery begins to run.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant:T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitor for respondent: G. C. Farr.

Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (February 26, 1915) affirming a decree of the first Subordinate Judge of Midnapur.

The suit was instituted by the appellant against the respondent on May 31, 1912, for a declaration that two conveyances of immovable property dated June 7, 1890, and February 11, 1901, respectively were not binding upon her, and for possession of the properties. The facts appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

The first of ft large number of issues settled was, "Is the suit barred by limitation?" The Subordinate Judge ordered that issue to be tried first under Order XIV., r, 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He held that the suit was barred whether it fell within art. 142 (as he held that it did), or within art., 144 of Sched. I. of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

The High Court upon appeal affirmed the decision, Save as to two villages which had been conveyed within twelve years of the suit being commenced.

88 Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 60 ( 1918- 1919) Rani Kuar Mani Mandhata V. Nawab of Murshidabad

189

1918. Nov. 7, 8. De Gruyther K.C., and H. N. Sen for the appellant. Time did not run against the suit while the property was under the charge of the Court of Wards. Under s. 35 of the Court of Wards Act, 1879, the Court of Wards had possession, though not adversely to the proprietors within the 3 meaning of art. 144 of Sched.1 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and under Part VII., of the Act the proprietors could not themselves sue or be sued see ss. 51,55 and Kumar Biseswar Roy v. Kumar Shoshi Roy . (( 1889) L. R. 17 I. A. 5.) No suit by the proprietors against the Court of Wards to obtain a release of the property was maintainable. The principle of Tukaram v. Sujangir (( 1884) I. L. R. 8 B. 585) applies, namely, that time does not run against a plaintiff while his property is in the custody of the law, and he is not legally able to sue for its possession. The order taking the property into charge was made under s. 6 (a) of the Act of 1879. The Subordinate Judge wrongly held that s. 6 (e), added by Bengal Act IV. of 1892, s. 3, was applicable, and that the proprietors had the powers given by that Act. No declaration under s. 56 (e) of that Act was made.

Dunne K. C., and Kenworthy Brown for the respondent. Time began to run, both under art., 142 and art., 144, when the purchaser got possession, and the suit was consequently barred. It is conceded that the order was made under s. 6 (a) and not under s. 6 (e), but no title vested in the Court of Wards the possession was on behalf of the proprietors and was analogous to that of a receiver, with statutory powers of management. [Reference was made to ss. 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 18, 35 of the Act of 1879.] There was no disability expressly or impliedly recognised by the Indian Limitation Act.

De Gruyther K.C. replied.

Dec. 3. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS. Raja Prithwi Nath Singh Mandhata died on October 4, 1882, without male issue and was succeeded by his two widows. At his death he was heavily indebted, and on March 1, 1886, the widows presented a petition to the Commissioner of their division praying that he would recommend the Court of Wards to take charge of the estate. On July 30, 1886, the Court of Wards under s. 27 of the Court of Wards Act, 1879, declared the widows to be disqualified proprietors under s. 6 (a) of the Act, and by the same order declared under s. 35 that it had determined to take under its charge the property of the widows and directed that possession be taken of the property on behalf of the Court.

On June 7, 1890, a part of the property called Killa Nazagram was sold to the defendants father and predecessor in title, and the transfer was executed by the Collector. The purchaser obtained possession- admittedly not later than April 30, 1891. The defendants father subsequently obtained a transfer of two villages called Pirote and Sukdubi, and this was executed by the Collector