Issue
Decision
Kashinath Rajaram Somani
v.
Govind Shankar Jinsiwalla
(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
Second Appeal No. 939 Of 1928 | 04-07-1930
Madgavkar, J
[1] The question in this appeal is whether the darkhasfc is barred by limitation.
[2] The decree-holder is a minor represented by the Court of Wards. The present darkhast is more than three years after the previous darkhast. The trial Court held that the Court of Wards was a trustee for the minor and that Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply. The lower appellate Court held that the Court of Wards was a manager and Section 6 applied and therefore the darkhast was time-barred. The judgment-debtor appeals.
[3] The question whether the Court of Wards is a trustee or a manager is irrelevant. Under Section 6 the last date for the decree-holder to apply was within three years after attaining majority. It has been held by the Courts in a series of cases such as Mon Mohun Buksee v. Gunga Soondery Dabee (1882) I.L.R. 9 Cal. 181, Lolit Mohun Misser v. Janoky Nath Roy (1893) I.L.R. 20 Cal. 714, Nwendva Nath Pahari v. Shupendra Narain Roy (1895) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 374, and Zamir Hasan v. Sundar (1899) I.L.R. 22 All. 199, that the guardian of a minor can also apply in execution at any time during the minority, even though his previous application is more than three years old.
[4] In view of these decisions the order of the lower appellate Court is correct and the appeal must be with costs.
[1] The question in this appeal is whether the darkhasfc is barred by limitation.
[2] The decree-holder is a minor represented by the Court of Wards. The present darkhast is more than three years after the previous darkhast. The trial Court held that the Court of Wards was a trustee for the minor and that Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply. The lower appellate Court held that the Court of Wards was a manager and Section 6 applied and therefore the darkhast was time-barred. The judgment-debtor appeals.
[3] The question whether the Court of Wards is a trustee or a manager is irrelevant. Under Section 6 the last date for the decree-holder to apply was within three years after attaining majority. It has been held by the Courts in a series of cases such as Mon Mohun Buksee v. Gunga Soondery Dabee (1882) I.L.R. 9 Cal. 181, Lolit Mohun Misser v. Janoky Nath Roy (1893) I.L.R. 20 Cal. 714, Nwendva Nath Pahari v. Shupendra Narain Roy (1895) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 374, and Zamir Hasan v. Sundar (1899) I.L.R. 22 All. 199, that the guardian of a minor can also apply in execution at any time during the minority, even though his previous application is more than three years old.
[4] In view of these decisions the order of the lower appellate Court is correct and the appeal must be with costs.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties ----
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MADGAVKAR
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE BARLEE
Eq Citation
128 IND. CAS. 430
1930 (32) BOMLR 1299
AIR 1930 BOM 593
LQ/BomHC/1930/114
HeadNote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 39 — Darkhast — Limitation — Decree-holder a minor represented by Court of Wards — Darkhast more than 3 yrs after previous darkhast — Held, question whether Court of Wards is a trustee or a manager is irrelevant — Under S. 6, last date for decree-holder to apply was within 3 yrs after attaining majority — It has been held by Courts in a series of cases that guardian of a minor can also apply in execution at any time during minority, even though his previous application is more than 3 yrs old — Limitation Act, 1908, S. 6
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
