TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (4) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said policy was converted into a paid up one at the request of the deceased with effect from 1.8.1955. A sum of Rs. 22,400.00 could have been paid to the deceased, on the date of maturity, under the said policy, i.e. 1.8.1962 . The deceased borrowed a sum of Rs.12,400.00 from the above said company on the basis of a bond dated 1.2.1956 executed by him in favor of the aforesaid company (hereinafter referred to as company for the sake of brevity). The deceased deposited the above said policy with the said company by way of security for the repayment of the said loan. (3) Meanwhile, Life Insurance Corporation Act of 1956 came into force. As a corollary whereof the business of the said company was transferred and vested in the appellant with effect from 1.9.1956. Consequently, the appellant became the insurers instead of the said company under the provisions of the said Act, as if it were they who, entered into the agreement of insurance with the deceased. (4) The deceased took another, loan from the appellant vide bond dated 7.5.1959 to the tune of Rs. 1,860.00 on the security of the policy alluded to above which was already in deposit with them. (5) The deceased neither c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14,474.52 P. was ever paid to the deceased. The respondents are under no obligation to refund or repay the alleged over-payment made to the deceased in as much the respondents have not inherited any property from the deceased. It is denied that the alleged payment was made by mistake. It is false and preposterous that the alleged mistake could be discovered for the first time on 205.1966. The suit is as such barred by time. The period of limitation is to be computed, from the date of alleged payment, i.e., 1.8.62, if so computed the suit is out of time. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. (11) The learned lower Court framed the following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiff has locus-standi to file the preset suit ? OPP. (2) Whether the suit is within time ? OPP. (3) Whether the amount of Rs. 12,400.00 was paid to the deceased Sagar Mal Almal, under mistake ? If so, to what effect ? OPP. (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any interest ? If so, at what rate ? OPP. (5) If the foregoing issues are held in favor of the plaintiff, then whether the defendants are liable to refund the suit amount to the plaintiff, as legal representatives of the deceased ? O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raud of the defendant or respondent or his agent, or (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit' or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him.' the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production; Provided............... (i)........................ (ii)........................ (iii)........................ (2)........................" Article 113 of the Limitation Act deals and prescribes period of limitation in those discerning few cases where there is no prescribed period. It reads as under: "113. Any suit for which no Three When the right period or limitation is years to sue accrues provided elsewhere in this Schedule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a bigger scope to the opposite party to contend that the date of the knowledge of the mistake or discovery pleaded is not the correct date of such discovery of a mistake or fraud, It further gives a handle in the hands of the opposite party to establish that it was possible for the plaintiff to have discovered the mistake had he been reasonably diligent. The plaintiff thus is not permitted to plead mechanically any date of the alleged discovery of the mistake-whichever he deems fit and proper in the circumstances of a particular case. (24) The provisions of the above Section came up for interpretation before their lordships of the High Court of Madras reported in Ramanathapuram Market Committee, Viradhunagar & Ors. Appellant v. East India Corporation Ltd. Madurai. The relevant portion reads, "If the plaintiff's allegation as to the date of knowledge of the mistake is adopted and accepted as a matter of course, then he would automatically be licensed to prejudice his adversary. A fortiori in a case where the defendant challenges the allegation, it is for the plaintiff to establish that he could not have discovered the mistake "with reasonable diligence" on a date earlier tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct in Ex. P. 3 should have set them on inquiry with regard to the first loan. Ex. P. 15 is an extract from the Schedule which not only shows the second loan of Rs. l,860.00 but also refers to the first loan of Rs. 12.400.00 . Ex. P. 7 is again an extract from the loan Register. It refers to the first loan. Ex. P. 2 is a statement of account where there is reference to the second loan. All the above documents admittedly pertain to the department of the appellants. Appellants were admittedly in possession thereof. All of them are ante litem motam. Hence the said documents can be safely relied upon The appellants are very much bound by the citations in the said documents and they cannot wriggle out of them. Thus it does not lie in their mouth to allege that they could not have discovered the mistake earlier than 20.5.1966. (28) Mr. Ravinder Sethi has then contended that the appellants are a statutory body. They deal day in and day out with thousands of cases. It is thus not possible for them to keep an eye on each and every case. According to him these things could not be lost sight of while interpreting the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act. The contention of the lear....