1. The question which arises in this second appeal is one offirst impression and appears at first sight to be not altogether free fromdifficulty. Having given the matter our most careful attention we are clearlyof opinion that there can be no bar of limitation against the minor in theseproceedings. If appears that a decree was obtained against the minor and hiselder brothers for a share of rent. It is alleged that attachment andproclamation issued simultaneously and that the decree-holder purchased at thesale without permission. The result is said to have been that property worthRs. 2,000 was sold for Rs. 40 on the 7th July 1903.

2. The Appellant minor and his brothers filed a petition onthe 31st March 1909 to have the sale set aside on the above grounds. The Munsifdismissed the application of the three major brothers and admitted the petitionof the minor. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the minoris also barred by limitation and dismissed his petition.

3. We need not go into the Subordinate Judges findings thatthere was no fraud, nor his finding that the simultaneous issue of attachmentand proclamation is no irregularity at all. Other irregularities were pleadedand the question whether on coming of age the Petitioner would be entitled tothree years or only to one months limitation does not arise inasmuch aslimitation has not yet begun to run against him he being still a minor. Thewhole difficulty has arisen from the alteration of the law effected by Act IXof 1908 which came into operation on the 1st January 1909.

4. By this act minors as such have no privilege ofdisability except as regards suits and applications for execution. But by ActXV of 1877 they had the privilege of non-liability to the law of limitation inrespect of all applications in judicial proceedings. That this is a privilegein Law and not a mere incident of procedure is clear. As long as the disabilitylasts the minors right to sue is unaffected by the Law of Limitation and thisis a status of non-liability conferred on him by law.

5. Now in sec. 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act privilege isopposed to liability, just as right is opposed to obligation and the privilegeof non-liability under the statute conferred by the statute itself clearlyinures under the General Clauses Act as long as the disability continues and isnot affected by the abolition of the privilege by a subsequent statute.

6. No doubt when limitation once begins to run thatlimitation must be under the current Act and nothing can stop the operation ofthat Act, but as long as the minor whose right accrued under Act XV of 1877remains a minor, his right to make an application in any judicial proceeding issaved.

7. As regards the finding that it is a privilege we mayrefer to the case of Mahadev v. Babi I. L. R. 26 Bom. 730 at p. 733 (1902). Andas regards the question of the saving of rights which parties had acquiredunder any previous enactments the remarks in Ram Chandra v. Soma I. L. R. 1Bom. 305n at p 308n (1876) would seem to carry the saving of such rights evenfurther, inasmuch as the Court held that time having begun to run under the oldstatute the parties were bound by the limitation imposed by the new statute butin the case before them the construction which they proposed to give to thepostponement of the operation of the new Act did not take away any right whichparties had acquired under previous enactments.

8. It would appear therefore that the Judges were of opinionthat any such right acquired before the new Act came into force would be savedeven although limitation had begun to run.

9. We do not desire to carry the effect of such rights toany such length. It is enough for our purpose to hold that as long aslimitation has no begun to run, such rights are unaffected. As long thereforeas the minor remains a minor he has the right to make this application andthere is no limitation.

10. As regards the merits the lower Appellate Court hasmixed this question up with the question of limitation and has only dealt withthe issue of fraud which it has not adequately discussed and one irregularityout of many alleged. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge being set aside onthe question of limitation, the case must be remanded to him for an independentfinding on the merits as to the effect of the allegation of fraud and of allthe irregularities complained of with special reference to the allegedinadequate price obtained at the sale in consequence of the decree-holderspurchasing without leave, costs in the lower Courts to abide the result. TheAppellant is entitled to the costs of this hearing which we fix at two goldmohurs.

.

Fazl Karim vs. Annada Mohan Ray and Ors. (12.06.1911 -CALHC)