1976 Supreme(SC) 471

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.**
Gurdit Singh and others etc., Appellants
Versus
Munsha Singh and others etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1944 to 1946 of 1967,
D/- 29-11-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. L. Sethi, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. Hardev Singh Advocate with him), for Appellants; Mr. S. K. Mehta and Mr. S. Ranga Raju, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 1-5.
Punjab limitation (customs) act,1950 — scope

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Section 14 (1) - Indian Evidence Act - Section 108 - Punjab Customs Act, 1920 – Section 7 - Possession of land – Claim of compensation - Relating to defect of jurisdiction - Whether in a court of first instance or in a court of appeal against defendant shall be excluded where the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature is unable to entertain it - Whether in a court of first instance or in a Court of Appeal against the defendant shall be excluded where proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature is unable to entertain it - Whether said court was unable to entertain former suits on account of any defect of an analogous character - Whether plaintiffs in each suit were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act - As appears from pedigree-table referred to in the judgment under appeal a descendant sold land admeasuring situate in village grandfather of defendants vide a registered sale deed dated June - After the aforesaid alienation one of collateral filed a suit for possession by pre-emption out of the aforesaid area which was decreed in his favor on April on payment of Rupees - Mutation in respect of remainder of the land admeasuring was attested in favor of on May did not retain the property which he secured by pre-emption and sold it back on September with the result that again became the owner of entire land which was originally sold to him who died - On July descendants of another son field a representative suit for declaration to the effect that the aforesaid sale in favor would not affect their reversionary rights as aforesaid land was ancestral and sale thereof was without consideration and legal necessity - A Division Bench of the Punjab Chief Court finally disposed of the said suit by judgment dated July declaring that upon the death adopted and extinction of his line, the aforesaid sale would not affect the reversionary interest – Held, It seems to court that the issue in the earlier litigation was whether was actually to have died on a particular date - This was quite different from the issue decided in the cases now before us - This is whether whereabouts had remained unknown for seven years so that he could be presumed to be dead - Court therefore rest my judgment solely on the ground that causes of action in the previous litigation and the litigation now before us being different and subsequent cause of action having arisen within three years before the filing of the suits before us suits were not barred by limitation - Division Bench of the Punjab High Court had proceeded on the obviously erroneous assumption that the learned single Judge had decided the appeals only by giving appellants the benefit of Section 14, sub-section (1) of Limitation Act - It had overlooked completely very first ground of decision of learned single Judge and also the condition imposed by the learned Judge on application of Section 14 by using words - If found necessary - Present suits were brought between of October and May - Correct approach to reach a solution of the present problem is to give allowance to plaintiff, if found necessary. for the period which they spent in previous litigation that is to say, from the year - Division Bench had thus completely ignored the effect of the finding of a new cause of action arising within three years before the filing of the plaintiffs suits - In court opinion this finding of learned single Judge was enough to dispose of these appeals - And as court have pointed out above, questions of either a time bar or its removal by resorting to S. 14(1) Limitation Act postulate that a point of time from which limitation can run has been ascertained - As that point on the findings of every Court including this Court could not be the date of death which is unknown suits could not possibly be dismissed on that ground - They could conceivably be dismissed on the finding that the date of death being an indispensable part of the cause of action plaints do not disclose a cause of action at all and therefore should have been rejected – But defendants have not taken any such plea directly - Nor was this argued on their behalf – Court regret to have to respectfully differ from the view adopted by my learned brother – Court unable to accept an interpretation of the relevant provision prescribing limitation which would confine the accrual of a cause of action only to cases of direct proof of death on a particular date - Such a view implies that suits based on a presumption of death are devoid of a cause of action which could support a suit by a reversionary – Court do not think that the provision we have to interpret was meant to define or restrict a right of suit or a cause of action in this fashion at all - Appeals dismissed