Limitation for undivided movable property claims follows the residuary rule, with good-faith jurisdictional proceedings excluded under section 14(1).

A suit seeking allotment and delivery of a share in jointly held Government promissory notes was not treated as a claim for recovery of specific movable property because no identified notes were claimed in specie; the applicable limitation provision was therefore the residuary article, not the article governing specific movable property. The time spent in earlier execution proceedings was excludable under section 14(1) because those proceedings were pursued with due diligence and good faith on the same substantive right, and they failed only because the executing court lacked jurisdiction. On that basis, the suit was within limitation and the limitation defence failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for allotment and delivery of the plaintiff's share in jointly held Government promissory notes was barred by limitation, and whether the time spent in the earlier execution proceedings was excludable under section 14(1) of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: The suit was not one for recovery of "specific movable property" within Article 49 of the Indian Limitation Act. The plaintiff did not claim any identified promissory notes in specie; he sought partition and allotment of a share out of jointly held notes, which remained undivided until actual partition. In such a case, the proper article was the residuary Article 120. The execution proceedings were civil proceedings prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, and they were founded on the same substantive right later asserted in the suit. The earlier proceedings failed because the executing court could not entertain them for defect of jurisdiction. The time spent in those proceedings was therefore liable to be excluded under section 14(1).

Conclusion: The suit was within limitation, and the High Court was wrong in dismissing it as time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The limitation defence failed, and the matter had to be sent back for decision on the remaining issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit seeking allotment of a share in undivided movable property is governed by the residuary limitation provision and not by the article applicable to recovery of specific movable property; time spent prosecuting related proceedings in good faith before a court lacking jurisdiction is excludable where the same substantive right is being enforced.

---