The cause of action determines the applicable law for determining the limitation period for filing a suit, and the nature of the mortgage determines the specific article of the Limitation Act, 1963, that applies to the case.

1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.06.2012, passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 125/2007 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao thereby, dismissing the suit of the appellant brought for recovery of money due under a mortgage.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under:-

The suit was filed by the appellant against the respondents for recovery of money, which was based upon the right acquired by him in a transfer of mortgage, by the original mortgagee, Dr. Francisco da Piedade Abranches. It is the case of the appellant that he was entitled to recover the money due in this mortgage from the respondents. The trial Court framed four issues and answered three issues in favour of the appellant and dismissed the suit by recording a negative finding on the fourth issue. The fourth issue related to bar of suit by law of limitation. The Appellate Court found that the suit was based upon a simple mortgage and therefore not Article 63(a) but Article 62 of the Limitation Act applied. The trial Court also rejected the contention of the appellant that in the instant matter, the law of limitation prescribed under Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code applied and the period of limitation for filing the suit of instant nature under said Article was of 30 years. The trial Court held that cause of action in filing of suit did not arise out of a special statute i.e. Portuguese Civil Code and the same arose out of the law enacted by the Indian Parliament.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, the appellant preferred a first appeal before the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, South Goa, Margao. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, South Goa, Margao and the learned Ad-hoc District Judge confirmed the finding so recorded by the trial Court on the point of application of Article 62 of the Limitation Act which barred the suit. The learned Ad-hoc District Judge extensively relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syndicate Bank versus Mr. Prabha D. Naik and another, reported in 2001 volume I GLT 281, in drawing the aforesaid conclusion and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for respondents 1, 7 and 8 and learned Counsel for respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6. None for respondent no. 5, though duly served. With their assistance, I have carefully gone through the paper-book including impugned judgments and decrees.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the Courts below have misconceived the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court, according to him, has laid down that period of limitation, as prescribed in the Portuguese law, will not be applicable to a case where the cause of action arises outside the Portuguese law. He has submitted that in the instant case, the Instrument of Credit Amount (Transfer of Mortgage) between the appellant and original mortgagee clearly contained a reference to provisions under Articles 785, 793 and 794 of the Portuguese Civil Code. He has invited my attention to the relevant clauses appearing on page 4 of the said document, which is taken on record and marked as 'X' for the purpose of identification. The learned Counsel emphasized that the period of limitation of 30 years as prescribed under Portuguese law is applicable to the instant suit, because the cause of action arose within Portuguese law, as can be seen from the clauses on page 4 of document 'X'. He has also invited my attention to the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court, rendered in First Appeal No. 129/1999 decided on 21.12.2004, in the case of Communidade of Morombi O Grande versus Jose Antonio Rodoilo Acuavi