1966 (4) TMI 82 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reverses judgment, dismisses suit due to limitation, parties bear costs.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decision dismissing the suit. The addition of ... - Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of Vijay Kumar's adoption by Tarabai.2. Right to enforce the mortgage by Vijay Kumar.3. Legality of adding Mahabalkumari, Rajkumari, and Premkumari as parties to the suit.4. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the added parties.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of Vijay Kumar's Adoption by Tarabai:The District Judge initially dismissed the suit on the ground that Vijay Kumar's adoption by Tarabai had not been established. This finding was not contested by Vijay Kumar in the subsequent appeals, and the High Court did not delve into this issue, ultimately dismissing the suit brought by Vijay Kumar.2. Right to Enforce the Mortgage by Vijay Kumar:Vijay Kumar claimed the right to enforce the mortgage as the adopted son and heir of Tarabai. However, the High Court dismissed his suit, and there was no appeal by Vijay Kumar against this dismissal. Thus, the issue of his right to enforce the mortgage was not further pursued.3. Legality of Adding Mahabalkumari, Rajkumari, and Premkumari as Parties to the Suit:The High Court allowed the addition of Mahabalkumari as a plaintiff and Rajkumari and Premkumari as defendants under O. 1, r. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Supreme Court found this addition insupportable. The Court held that the addition of parties could not be justified under sub-r. (1) of O. 1, r. (10) as it permits only the addition of a plaintiff and not defendants. Furthermore, the addition of these parties was deemed futile because it would not have resulted in any decree being passed due to the bar of limitation.4. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Added Parties:The Supreme Court emphasized that under s. 22 of the Limitation Act, the suit as regards the added parties (Mahabalkumari, Rajkumari, and Premkumari) had to be deemed to have been instituted when they were added, i.e., on November 4, 1958. This was beyond the limitation period for enforcing the mortgage, which fell due on February 9, 1943, making the suit barred by limitation. The Court rejected the High Court's reliance on Ravji v. Mahadev, stating that s. 22 of the Limitation Act does apply to the addition of parties under sub-r. (1) of r. (10) of O. 1.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit. The addition of parties was found to be insupportable due to the bar of limitation, and no decree could be passed in favor of the added parties. The suit brought by Vijay Kumar was dismissed, and there was no appeal against this dismissal. Consequently, the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit was restored, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.