Back
1963 Supreme(P&H) 155
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
D. FALSHAW,A. N. GROVER, JJ.
State of Punjab
Versus
Bhagat Ram Kirpa Ram
Letters Patent Appeal No. 16 of 1960 from judgment of Capoor, J. in F.A.O. No. 41 of 1959
Decided On : 04-09-1963
S.M. Sikri, Advocate General, for Appellants; Kumar, for Respondent.
Art. 181 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under Sec. 88 of the Lunacy Act.
Headnote:
INDIAN LUNACY ACT, 1912 - SEC. 88 - LIMITATION - ART. 181 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE INDIAN LIMITATION ACT - NOT APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 88 OF THE LUNACY ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Bhagat Ram was ordered to pay maintenance charges for his wife, Maya Wanti, who had been detained in a mental hospital. The District Judge directed Bhagat Ram to pay Rs. 2,865.16 nP. towards the costs of maintenance up to 31st May 1957. On appeal, the Single Judge held that the claim was barred by limitation under Art. 181 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act and reduced the amount to Rs. 1,800/-.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Art. 181 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to proceedings under Sec. 88 of the Lunacy Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 1953 SCR 351, which held that Art. 181 applies only to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: Whether Art. 181 of the Limitation Act was applicable to proceedings under Sec. 88 of the Lunacy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Art. 181 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to proceedings under Sec. 88 of the Lunacy Act because there was no provision in the Lunacy Act which made the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to all proceedings before the District Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the order of the District Judge was restored.
A. N. GROVER, J. :- This is an appeal under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a learned Single Judge by which he modified the order of the first Court directing the payment of certain amounts by Bhagat Ram to the Punjab Government in respect of the maintenance charges of his wife, Maya Want, who had been ordered on 23rd July 1952 to be detained in the Mental Hospital at Amritsar. On 9th October 1957 the Additional District Magistrate, Amritsar, instituted an application under Sec. 88 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, praying that maintenance charges in the aggregate sum of Rs. 2,86516 nP. be awarded against Bhagat Ram, the husband, who was found to maintain his wife, Maya Wanti, while she was in the Mental Hospital. The learned District Judge after deciding all the points that were raised but which it is unnecessary to state, held that Bhaqat Ram was liable to pay Rs. 2,865.16 nP. towards the costs of maintenances of Maya went up to 31st May 1957 and directed him to pay the aforesaid amount to the Punjab Government. He was also burdened with costs.
2. Before the learned Single Judge one of the points taken was that the claim was barred by time under Art. 181 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. Certain cases were cited before him i.e. Ananta Charan Padhan v. Nimai Babubalchandra, AIR 1927 Pat 177, Shah and Co. v. Ishar Singh Kripal Singh and Co., AIR 1954 Cal 164 and union of India v. Firm Kiroo Mal Nawal Kishore, AIR 1952 Pun 423 in support of the that Art. 181 was applicable. It has been observed by the learned Judge that Mr. H.S. Doabia, who appeared en behalf of the State, was not able to cite any authority to the contrary. It was consequently held that the claim for the period beyond three years from the filing of the application, would be barred by limitation. Accordingly a decree was made only for an amount of Rs. 1,800/- with proportionate costs. The present appeal has been filed by the Punjab State
3. It is somewhat unfortunate that the counsel who appeared on behalf of the State before the learned Single Judge did not refer to several decisions including one of the Supreme Court. According to these Art. 181 would not be applicable to such proceedings. In Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 1953 SCR 351 : (AIR 1953 SC 98). It was observed at p. 369 (of SCR) L (at p. 103 of AIR) :-
"Learned, advocate, however, strongly relies on Art. 181 of the Limitation Act. That article has, in a long series of decisions of most, if not all, of the High Courts, been held to govern, only applications under the Cede of Civil Procedure. It may tie that there may be divergence of opinion even within the same High Court but the preponderating view undoubtedly is that the article applies only to applications under the Code."
After referring to a number of authorities, it was further observed -
"This long catena at decisions may well be said to have, as it were, added the words under the Code in the first column of that article."
Although the matter was not finally decided but the trend of observations of their Lordships is that Art. 181 would be applicable only to applications which were made under the Code of Civil Procedure. In Kalinath Chatterjee v. Nagendra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1959 Cal 81, after examining a good deal of case law as also considering the observations of the Supreme Court, S.R. Das Gupta and N.K. Sen JJ., have expressed the view that Art. 181 does not apply to an application for probate and that the application contemplated in Art. 181 is confined to the type of applications filed under the Code of Civil Procedure. In Mt. Anguri Devi v. Bal Ram Ganpat Rai, AIR 1960 Punj 204, I had occasion to discuss the judgment of the Supreme Court and other case law while sitting with Bhandari, C.J. It was pointed out by me that since there was no mention of the Code in Art. 181 a good deal of controversy arose whether that article was confined to applications made under the Code or that
