1. The appellants sued for exercising their right of pre-emption against the respondents. The suit came to be dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation. An appeal therefrom has been dismissed. In this second appeal, two substantial questions of law with regard to the period of limitation and implied repeal of the limitation, specifying period of limitation are framed, which are as under:

a) Whether in a suit for pre-emption, the limitation period is governed by Article 1566 of Portuguese Civil Code or Article 97 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963?

b) Whether in view of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which applies to the State of Goa and prescribes a period of limitation for a suit to enforce the right of pre-emption that part of Article 1566 prescribing a shorter period of limitation stands repealed?

The aforesaid questions may be considered together.

The other issues, on facts, have resulted in concurrent findings of fact, which need not be gone into in this appeal.

2. The plaintiffs exercised their right of pre-emption under Article 1566 of the Portuguese Civil Code (PCC), the relevant part of which runs thus:

“The co-owners of indivisible or undivided things cannot sell to third parties their respective share if the co-owner desires such part.

1. The co-owner to whom notice of the sale was not given can have for himself the share sold to the third parties, provided that he applies within the period of six months from the date on which he got the knowledge of the sale, deposition before effecting the handling over the price which, according to the points of the agreement has been paid or received.

2. …

3. …

4. …”

3. The PCC which was enacted by the Portuguese has not been repealed after the liberation of Goa. The plaintiffs, therefore, could exercise their right under the aforesaid Article, as they are co-owners of the suit property with the defendants. Article 1566 prohibits sale by a co-owner if other co-owner desired that part which was sold. If notice of sale was not given by the co-owner selling his undivided share to a stranger, he could exercise his right of preemption, but only if he applied within six months from the date of knowledge of the sale. The law of pre-emption contained in Article 1566 is, therefore, a complete Code. It sets out substantive, as also procedural aspect of exercise of such right. It would be applicable either wholly or not at all. (This shall be seen from the enunciation of the Supreme Court in the case of Syndicate Bank vs. Prabha D. Naik and another etc., AIR 2001 SC 1968, as shall be seen presently).

4. It is seen that the period of limitation under the PCC is six months from the date of knowledge of the sale.

5. The Limitation Act, 1963, repealing the earlier Limitation Act, 1904, was enacted a year or so after the liberation of Goa. It applies to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It, therefore, applies even in Goa. In Article 97 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, contained in Part IX, which is in respect of suits relating to miscellaneous matters, the period of limitation to enforce the right of pre-emption, whether under law or special contract, is specified. The period of limitation is one year from the registration of the sale deed by the purchaser of the persons against whom the right is created. It is not from the date of knowledge of the sale.

6. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants that though they applied for a right of pre-emption under Article 1566, the period of limitation specified in that Article by way of proviso to their right is not applicable to them because the Limitation Act would apply to the State of Goa.

7. The applicability of the Limitation Act is circumscribed by the savings contained in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act under which special or local law prescribing a different period of limitation would require such period to be applicable and not the period mentioned