1987 (5) TMI 385 - SC - Indian Laws

Treasure-trove counter-claim allowed as Section 14 limitation inapplicable without Collector's Section 9 declaration

Mahendra Kumar and Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

The SC allowed the appeal and set aside orders dismissing appellants' counter-claim in a treasure-trove dispute. The Court held that the counter-claim was ... - The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter were:1. Whether the counter-claim filed by the appellants was barred by limitation under Section 14 of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878 ('the Act').2. Whether the counter-claim was maintainable under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) when filed after the written statement.3. The proper interpretation and application of the provisions of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act, particularly Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14, in respect of suits relating to treasure found on property.4. The distinction between suits instituted under Section 8 and Section 14 of the Act and the corresponding limitation periods applicable.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether the counter-claim was barred by limitation under Section 14 of the Indian Treasure-Trove ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14 of the Act mandates that any person who has appeared and claimed treasure before the Collector may institute a suit within one month from the date of the order passed under Section 13, to obtain a decree declaring his right to the treasure or ownership of the place where it was found. Section 9 provides that the Collector may declare the treasure ownerless if certain conditions are met, and Section 13 contemplates a stay of proceedings by the Collector to allow a civil court to determine ownership disputes.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that Section 14 applies only after the Collector has made a declaration under Section 9 that the treasure is ownerless and has passed an order under Section 13 staying proceedings for civil adjudication of ownership of the place. The Court distinguished suits filed under Section 8 from those under Section 14, noting that Section 8 suits relate to establishing the claimant's right to the treasure within the adjournment period fixed by the Collector, which may exceed one month. Section 14 suits relate to ownership disputes after the treasure is declared ownerless.Key evidence and findings: The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 instituted the suit within the period of adjournment granted under Section 8, seeking declaration of title to the treasure. No declaration under Section 9 was made by the Collector, and thus no order under Section 13 had been passed. Therefore, the conditions for filing a suit under Section 14 did not arise.Application of law to facts: Since the suit was instituted under Section 8 within the adjournment period and no declaration under Section 9 was made, the limitation prescribed by Section 14 was inapplicable. The counter-claim filed by the appellants was not barred by Section 14 because the suit itself was not filed under Section 14.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the counter-claim was barred by Section 14 limitation. The Court rejected this by clarifying the distinct procedural and substantive contexts for suits under Sections 8 and 14, holding that applying Section 14 limitation to suits under Section 8 would distort the legislative intent.Conclusions: The counter-claim was not barred by limitation under Section 14 of the Act as it was filed in a suit instituted under Section 8, where Section 14 limitation does not apply.Issue 2: Maintainability of the counter-claim under Rule 6A(1) of Order VIII CPC when filed after the written statementRelevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 6A(1) of Order VIII CPC permits a defendant to file a counter-claim before delivering his defence or before the expiry of the time allowed for delivering the defence, provided the cause of action accrued before the defence was filed. The Limitation Act, 1963, Article 113, treats a counter-claim as a suit for limitation purposes.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that Rule 6A(1) does not bar the filing of a counter-claim after the written statement if the cause of action for the counter-claim had accrued before the written statement was filed. The High Court's interpretation that filing a counter-claim after the written statement is impermissible was held to be a misreading of the provision.Key evidence and findings: The appellants filed the counter-claim after the written statement, but the cause of action for the counter-claim had accrued before the filing of the written statement. The counter-claim was filed within three years of accrual of the right to sue, satisfying limitation requirements under the Limitation Act.Application of law to facts: Since the cause of action for the counter-claim arose prior to the written statement, Rule 6A(1) did not bar the counter-claim. The counter-claim was maintainable and not barred by limitation.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents contended that the counter-claim was barred by Rule 6A(1) due to its filing after the written statement. The Court rejected this, clarifying the correct interpretation of Rule 6A(1).Conclusions: The counter-claim was maintainable under Rule 6A(1) of Order VIII CPC despite being filed after the written statement, as the cause of action accrued before the written statement.Issue 3: Interpretation and application of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act provisions relating to suits and limitationRelevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 4-14 of the Act regulate the procedure for discovery, notification, claims, and suits concerning treasure found on property. Section 8 allows a claimant to institute a suit within the adjournment period fixed by the Collector. Section 9 empowers the Collector to declare treasure ownerless under certain conditions. Section 13 mandates stay of proceedings by the Collector to allow civil adjudication of ownership disputes. Section 14 prescribes limitation for suits following the Collector's order under Section 13.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court provided a detailed construction of the Act, emphasizing the distinct procedural stages and types of suits envisaged. It clarified that suits under Section 8 are to establish the claimant's right to the treasure and are filed within the adjournment period, whereas suits under Section 14 relate to ownership disputes after the treasure is declared ownerless. The Court rejected any conflation of limitation periods applicable to these different types of suits.Key evidence and findings: The factual matrix showed that the suit was instituted under Section 8, and no declaration under Section 9 was made. The Collector had not passed any order under Section 13, so the limitation under Section 14 was inapplicable.Application of law to facts: The Court held that the limitation prescribed by Section 14 applies only to suits instituted after the Collector's order under Section 13 following a declaration under Section 9. Since these conditions were not met, Section 14 limitation did not apply to the suit or counter-claim filed under Section 8.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued for application of Section 14 limitation to the counter-claim. The Court rejected this as contrary to the statutory scheme and legislative intent.Conclusions: The Court established a clear distinction between suits under Section 8 and Section 14 of the Act, with corresponding limitation periods. It held that the limitation under Section 14 does not govern suits filed under Section 8.Significant Holdings:'It is manifestly clear that if no declaration is made under Section 9, there is no question of filing a suit under Section 14 of the Act.''While a suit under Section 8 relates to the establishment of the right of the claimant to the treasure, a suit under Section 14 relates to the establishment of the ownership of the place where the treasure was found for the purpose of division of the treasure between the finder and the owner of the place.''Rule 6A(1) does not, on the face of it, bar the filing of a counter-claim by the defendant after he had filed the written statement.''As the cause of action for the counter-claim had arisen before the filing of the written statement, the counter-claim was, therefore, quite maintainable.'The Court concluded that the counter-claim filed by the appellants was neither barred by limitation under Section 14 of the Act nor barred by Rule 6A(1) of Order VIII CPC. The earlier orders dismissing the counter-claim were set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit and counter-claim in accordance with law.