http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: JUSTINIANO AUGUSTO DE PIEDADA BARRETO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANTONIO VICENTE DE FONSECA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/03/1979

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1979 AIR  984            1979 SCR  (3) 494  1979 SCC  (3)  47  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1990 SC2072  (52)  R          1992 SC  81  (7,27)

ACT:      Limitation-Provisions  of  the  Portuguese  Civil  Code relating to limitation, whether stand repealed by Limitation Act 1963  (Act 36  of  1963)  by  necessary  implication  or whether they  are  saved  by  section  29(2)  of  that  Act- Limitation Act,  1963 section  29(2), Portuguese  Civil Code Art. 535.  The Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 sub section  (1) and  (2) of sections 5 and 6. The Goa Daman and Diu  (Laws) Regulations promulated under Art. 240 of the Constitution  scope   of-"Local  Law"   and  "Special   Law" difference in-Whether the Portuguese Civil Code a local law- Whether there  is any  repugnancy and  therefore void  under Art. 254(1) of the Constitution.

HEADNOTE:      On Goa,  Daman and  Diu becoming  a part  of India as a Union Territory,  Parliament enacted  the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 to provide for its administration and for matters connected therewith. Section 5(1) of the Act declared that  all laws  in force  immediately  before  20th December, 1961  in Goa,  Daman and  Diu or  any part thereof shall continue  to be  in force  therein  until  amended  or repealed by  a  competent  Legislature  or  other  competent authority. Pursuant  to the  powers conferred by Article 240 of  the  Constitution,  the  President  promulgated  certain Regulations  styled  as  ‘The  Goa,  Daman  and  Diu  (Laws) Regulations’ from  time to  time. These Regulations extended certain enactments  to Goa,  Daman and  Diu  with  specified modifications. To  the extent  that any law in force in Goa, Daman and  Diu corresponded to any Act which was so extended to  those   Territories  such  law  was  declared  to  stand repealed.      Before  Goa,  Daman  and  Diu  became  part  of  India, Portuguese Civil  Code and  the Portuguese  Civil  Procedure Code were  in force  in those  territories.  The  Portuguese Civil  Code   contained  various   provisions  dealing  with limitation  for   suits,  applications  and  appeals.  These provisions were never repealed either by express legislative enactment or  by an  order made by the Central Government in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

exercise of  the powers conferred upon it under section 5(2) of the  1962 Act  by any  Regulation made  by the President. Neither any  notification by  the Central  Government  under section 6  of the  1962 Act  was issued nor was a regulation made by  the President extending the Limitation Act, 1908 to Goa, Daman  and Diu with or without modification Nor did any Regulation repeal  any of  the provision  of the  Portuguese Civil Code  relating to  Limitation. Even the Goa, Daman and Diu  (Extension   of  the   Code  of   Civil  Procedure  and Arbitration Act), 1965, neither expressly nor by implication repealed the  provisions relating to limitation contained in the Portuguese  Code. The  Goa, Daman  and Diu (Extension of the Code  of Civil Procedure and Arbitration Act), 1965 also did not  either  expressly  or  by  implication  repeal  the provisions relating  to limitation  in the  Portuguese Civil Code.      In the  circumstances,  the  question  that  arose  for consideration in  the appeals  by the  appellants-defendants was "whether the provisions of the Portuguese 495 Civil Code  relating to  Limitation stood  repealed  by  the Limitation Act,  1963, by  necessary implication, or whether they were saved by Section 29(2) ibid ?"      Dismissing the appeals by special leave the Court, ^      HELD :  1. The  provisions in the Portuguese Civil Code dealing with  the subject of Limitation of suits etc. and in force in  the Union  Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu only is "local law"  within the  meaning of  Section  29(2)  of  the Limitation Act,  1963. These provisions have to be read into the 1963  Act, as if the schedule to the said Act is amended mutatis mutandis. [503 B]      2. If  section 32  and section  29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963  are read together it is clear that the only law of Limitation that  was repealed  was the  Limitation Act, 1908 and all other laws dealing with limitation, special or local were saved and are to be read into the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, no  question of  repugnancy or  voidness  of  the provisions  of   the  Portuguese   Civil  Code  relating  to limitation on  that ground  arises. They  continue to  be in force, in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. [503 A- B, C]      Deep Chand  v. The  State of  U.P., [1959]  2 SCR  843; Municipal Council,  Palai v.  T. J. Joseph, [1964] 2 SCR 87; State of  Jammu and Kashmir v. H. S. Farooqui, AIR 1972 S.C. 1738; referred to.      3. The  word "special" has reference to subject and the word  "local"   has  reference   to  a  particular  area  or territory. A  special law  is a law relating to a particular subject while  a local law is a law confined to a particular area or  territory. Used  in an  Act made  by Parliament the word local  may refer  to a  part or  the whole  of the many States constituting  the Union.  Though a law dealing with a particular subject may be a general law in the sense that it is a law of general applicability, laying down general rules yet, it  may contain  special provisions  relating to bar of time, in  specified cases  different from the general law of limitation. Such  a law  would be  a  special  law  for  the purpose of  section  29(2)  of  the  Limitation  Act,  1963. Similarly, a law which may be a law of general applicability is yet  a local  law, if  its applicability is confined to a particular area  instead of  ‘generally’ the  whole country. [501 A-D]      Kaushalya Rani  v. Gopal  Singh, [1964] 4 SCR 982 @ 987 and 988; applied.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    Queen v.  Land County  Council [1863]  2 Q.B. 454 @ 462 quoted with approval.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1818 of 1969.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  17-3-1969  of  the Judicial Commissioner’s Court in Appeal No. 243/66.                             AND                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2038 of 1969      From the  Judgment and Decree dated the 12th March 1969 of the  Court of Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman and Diu in Second Appeal No. 5 of 1968. 496      V. M.  Tarkunde, Naunit  Lal and  Dr. Bernardo Das Rais for the Appellant (In C.A. 1818/69).      Eduardo Falero,  O. C.  Mathur, D. N. Misra and B. D. & Co. for the Respondent (In C.A. 1818/69).      Naunit Lal  and Dr. Bernardo Das Rais for the Appellant (In C.A. 2038/69).      S. V. Tambwekar for the Respondent (In C.A. 2038/69).      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-It is now a matter of history that the erstwhile  Portuguese Colonial Possessions of Goa, Daman and Diu  became part  of the  Territory of  India from  20th December, 1961.  The territories  of Goa, Daman and Diu were incorporated  as  a  Union  Territory  by  the  Constitution (Twelfth  Amendment)   Act,  1962,  with  effect  from  20th December, 1961. The Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, repealing  and re-enacting  the provisions of the Goa, Daman and  Diu Administration Ordinance 1962, was enacted by Parliament to  provide for  the administration  of the Union Territory of  Goa, Daman  and Diu  and for matters connected therewith. Section 5(1) of the Act declared that all laws in force immediately  before the  appointed day (20th December, 1961) in  Goa, Daman  and Diu  or  any  part  thereof  shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a  competent   Legislature  or  other  competent  authority. Section 5(2)  enabled the  Central  Government,  within  two years from  the appointed  day, to make such adaptations and modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary  or expedient  for the  purpose of facilitating application  of   any  such   law   in   relation   to   the administration of  Goa, Daman  and Diu  as a Union Territory and for  the purpose  of bringing the provisions of any such law into  accord with  the provisions  of the  Constitution. Section 6  of the  Act empowered  the Central Government, by notification in  the official  Gazette, to  extend with such restrictions or  modifications, as  it thinks  fit, to  Goa, Daman and Diu, any enactment which is in force in a State at the date of the notification.      Before Goa, Daman and Diu became part of India, certain laws such as the Portuguese Civil Code, the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code  etc. were  in force  in  those  Territories. Apart  from   dealing  with   multiple  other  matters,  the Portuguese Civil  Code contained, various provisions dealing with limitation  for suits,  applications and appeals. It is undisputed that  the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code relating to Limitation were never repealed either by express Legislative 497 enactment or  by any order made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 5 (2)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

of the  Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962. It is also not in dipute that the Central Government did not issue any notification  under Section  of the  Goa, Daman  and Diu (Administration) Act  extending the  Indian Limitation  Act, 1908, to Goa, Daman and Diu with or without modification.      The  Constitution   (Twelfth  Amendment)  Act  suitably amended Article  240  of  the  Constitution  to  enable  the President to  make Regulations  for the  peace, progress and good Government of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu until a  body was  created  by  Parliamentary  enactment  to function as  a Legislature for the Union Territory. Pursuant to the  powers conferred by Article 240 of the Constitution, the President promulgated certain Regulations styled as ‘The Goa, Daman  and Diu  (Laws) Regulations’  from time to time. These Regulations  extended certain enactments to Goa, Daman and Diu with specified modifications. To the extent that any law in  force in  Goa, Daman and Diu corresponded to any Act which was  so extended  to those  Territories, such  law was declared to stand repealed. The Indian Limitation Act, 1908, was not one of the Acts extended to Goa, Daman and Diu under any of  the Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulalations. Nor was any Regulation  made by  the President  repealing any of the provisions  of   the  Portuguese   Civil  Code  relating  to Limitation.      While so,  the Limitation  Act  1963,  was  enacted  by Parliament on  5th October,  1963, to  take effect  from the date  to   be  appointed   by  the   Central  Government  by notification in the official Gazette. 1st January, 1964, was later specified  as the  date from  which the Limitation Act was to  come into force. Section 1(2) extends the Limitation Act, 1963,  to the  whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.  Section 32  of  the  Act  containing  but  one sentence repeals  the Indian  Limitation Act, 1908. No other enactment is  expressly repealed.  Section 31  makes special provision for  suits etc. for which the prescribed period of limitation is  shorter than  the period  prescribed  by  the Indian Limitation  Act, 1908.  Section 29 contains ‘savings’ clauses and  Section 29(2) which particularly saves ‘special and local laws’ is in these terms :           "29(2) Where  any special  or local law prescribes      for  any  suit,  appeal  or  application  a  period  of      limitation different  from the period prescribed by the      Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if      such period  were the period prescribed by the Schedule      and for the purpose of 498      determining any period of limitation prescribed for any      suit, appeal  or application  by any  special or  local      law, the  provisions contained  in  sections  4  to  24      (inclusive) shall apply in so far as, and to the extent      to which,  they are  not  expressly  excluded  by  such      special or local law".      The question  which has  arisen  for  consideration  in these  two   appeals  is   whether  the  provisions  of  the Portuguese Civil  Code relating to Limitation stand repealed by the  Limitation Act,  1963, by  necessary implication, or whether they are saved by Section 29(2) of that Act.      Civil Appeal  No. 1818  of 1969  arises out  of a  suit filed by  the respondent-plaintiff  against  the  appellant- defendant on  25th  November,  1965,  claiming  damages  for malicious prosecution.  The prosecution which was alleged to have been  maliciously launched  against the plaintiff ended in an  acquittal by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court, Lisbon, on  6th April,  1960. The plaintiff claimed that the suit was  within time  under Article  535 of  the Portuguese

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Civil Code  which provides  a period  of  limitation  of  20 years. On the other hand the defendant claimed that the suit was governed  by Article  74 of  the Limitation  Act,  1963, which provides  a period of limitation of one year only. The Trial  Court   decided  the   point  of   limitation,  as  a preliminary issue,  in favour  of the plaintiff. An ‘Agravo’ appeal to  the District  Judge and  a further  appeal to the Judicial Commissioner  not having  borne fruit the defendant has preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.      Civil Appeal  No. 2038  of 1969  arises out  of a  suit instituted by  the plaintiff-respondent  to recover a sum of Rs. 5,000/-  said to  be due on a promissory note dated 24th November, 1962, executed by the defendant-appellant. In this suit the plaintiff claimed that the period of limitation was as provided  by Article  535 of  the Portuguese  Civil  Code while the  defendant claimed  that the  period of limitation was as  provided by  Article  31  of  the  Schedule  to  the Limitation Act, 1963. The question of Limitation was decided as a  preliminary issue  in favour  of the  plaintiff by the Subordinate Courts  and by the Judicial Commissioner of Goa. The defendant  has preferred  this  appeal  after  obtaining special leave from this Court.      The principal  submission of  Shri V.  M. Tarkunde  and Shri Naunit  Lal, learned  Counsel for the appellants in the two appeals  was that the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code relating  to Limitation  for the  filing of  suits etc. must be  considered to  have been  pro-tanto-repealed by the Limitation Act,  1963, in  view of  Article  254(1)  of  the Constitution of  India. It  was their  submission  that  the provisions 499 relating to  limitation contained  in the  Portuguese  Civil Code, a  law made  by  the  Legislature  of  a  State,  were repugnant to  the provisions  of the  Limitation Act,  a law made by  Parliament and,  therefore, the  former  provisions were void  to the extent of the repugnancy. It was submitted that the  question of  a local or special law being saved by the provisions  of  Section  29  would  arise  only  if  the provisions of the local or special law were not repugnant to the law made by Parliament namely the Limitation Act. It was further argued  that the Portuguese Civil Code was a general law and  not a  local law  and,  therefore,  the  provisions contained in  it relating to limitation were not saved under Section 29(2)  of the  Limitation Act. It was also contended that the  words "where  any special  or local law prescribes for any  suit, appeal  or application"  occurring in Section 29(2) indicated  that Section  29(2)  was  confined  in  its application to odd Legislation dealing with particular types of suits  and did  not extend to a general law of Limitation like the Portuguese Civil Code.      Shri Eduardo Falero and Shri Tambwekar, learned Counsel for the  respondents urged  that the  Portuguese Civil  Code which was  applicable to  the Union  Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu  only and  not the  whole of  India was a local law, and, therefore,  the provisions  contained in it relating to limitation were  saved by  Section 29(2)  of the  Limitation Act, 1963.  The relevant  provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code  having  been  expressly  saved,  no  question  of  any repugnancy  between   those  provisions  and  those  of  the Limitation Act  arose. It  was also  urged  that  Parliament which made  express provision  in Section  30 for  suits for which the Limitation Act 1963, prescribed shorter periods of limitation than  the  Indian  Limitation  Act,  1908,  would surely not  have allowed the drastic inroads into the law of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

Limitation of suits prevailing in Goa, Daman and Diu without introducing a  provision  similar  to  Section  30.  It  was further  urged  that  the  Limitation  Act,  1963,  was  not retrospective so  as to  cutail  periods  of  limitation  in respect of causes of action which had already arisen.      Before  considering   the  rival   contentions  of  the parties, we  may, at this juncture, mention that the Code of Civil Procedure,  1908 and  the Arbitration  Act, 1940, were extended to  the Union  Territory of  Goa, Daman  and Diu by Section 3  of the  Goa, Daman and Diu (Extension of the Code of Civil  Procedure and  the  Arbitration  Act)  Act,  1965. Section 4  of the Act repeals so much of the law in force in the Union  Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu as corresponds to the Code  of Civil  Procedure, 1908  or the Arbitration Act, 1940. This  Act also  neither expressly  nor by  implication repeals the  provisions relating  to limitation contained in the Portuguese Civil Code. 500      Article 254(1)  of the  Constitution prescribes that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to  any provision  of a  law, made  by  Parliament which Parliament  is competent to enact, or to any provision of an  existing law  with respect  to  one  of  the  matters enumerated in  the Concurrent  List,  then  subject  to  the provisions of  clause 2, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before  or after  the law  made by the Legislature of such State,  or as  the case  may be, the existing law shall prevail and  the law  made by  the Legislature  of the State shall, to  the extent of repugnancy be void. We are not here concerned with  the provisions  of clause 2. For the purpose of the  present appeals,  we will assume that the Portuguese Civil Code  which was continued by Parliament to be in force in the  Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu was a law made by the  Legislature of  a State, though there may be several objections  to   so  doing.  The  principles  applicable  to ascertain whether  there is  repugnancy  or  not  have  been enunciated by this Court in Deep Chand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(1), Municipal  Council, Palai  v. T.  J.  Joseph(2), State of  Jammu and  Kashmir v.  H. S. Farooqi(3), and other cases. We  do not  consider it necessary to restate the well known  principles.  Without  doubt  the  provisions  of  the Portuguese Civil  Code, unless  they are  saved  by  Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, are repugnant to the provisions of the  Limitation Act,  1963. If, howver, the provisions of the Portuguese  Civil Code  are saved  by Section 29(2) then there can  be no  question of  any repugnancy. Section 29(2) declares that  the period  of limitation  prescribed by  any special or  local law  shall apply  as if  such  period  was prescribed by  the Schedule  to the Limitation Act. In other words it  is as  if the special or local law is incorporated into the  Limitation Act  and the Schedule to the Limitation Act is  amended, mutatis  mutandis, by  the special or local law. Therefore,  to say  that the provisions of a special or local law  which by  the necessary  implication  of  Section 29(2) are  read into  the Limitation Act are contrary to the provisions of  the Limitation  Act, is  merely to argue in a vicious circle,  to end  where one  begins. So  the question whether the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code are void on the  ground that  they are repugnant to the provisions of the Limitation  Act depends  on  the  question  whether  the Portuguese Civil  Code is  saved by  Section  29(2)  of  the Limitation Act, 1963. That depends on whether the Portuguese Civil Code  is a  special or local law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 501

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

    We do  not see  how we  can escape  from the conclusion that the  Portuguese Civil  Code is  a local  law within the meaning of  Section 29(2).  Obviously the word ’special’ has reference to  subject and  the word ’local’ has reference to area or  territory. A  special law  is a  law relating  to a particular subject  while a local law is a law confined to a particular area  or  territory.  Used  in  an  Act  made  by Parliament the  word local  may refer to a part or the whole of one  of the  many States constituting the Union. Though a law dealing  with a  particular subject may be a general law in the  sense that  it is  a law  of general  applicability, laying down  general rules,  yet,  it  may  contain  special provision relating  to bar  of  time,  in  specified  cases, different from  the general  law of  limitation. Such  a law would be a special law for the purpose of Section 29(2). The rule of  limitation contained  in Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal  Procedure of  1898 was accordingly held to be a ’special  law’   in  Kaushalya   Rani  v.   Gopal  Singh(1). Similarly, a law which may be a law of general applicability is yet  a local  law if,  its applicability is confined to a particular area  instead of  generally the whole country. In The Queen v. London County Council(2) Bowen L.J. observed:           "Now, a  general Act,  prima facie,  is that which      applies to  the whole community. In the natural meaning      of the  term it  means an  Act of  Parliament which  is      unlimited  both   in  its  area  and,  as  regards  the      individual, in  its effects; and as opposed to that you      get statutes  which may  well be  public because of the      importance of  the subjects  with which  they deal  and      their general  interest to the community, but which are      limited in  respect of  area a  limitation which  makes      them local-or  limited in  respect  of  individuals  or      persons-a limitation which makes them personal. Here, we  may also extract the following useful observations from Kaushalya  Rani v. Gopal Singh (supra) to which we have already referred:           "It has been observed in some of the cases decided      by the  High Courts that the Code is not a special or a      local law  within  the  meaning  of  s.  29(2)  of  the      Limitation Act,  that is  to say,  so far as the entire      Code is  concerned, because  it is a general law laying      down procedure,  generally, for  the trial  of criminal      cases. But the specific question with which we are here      concerned is  whether the  provision  contained  in  s.      417(4) of the Code is a special law. The whole Code is 502      indeed  a  general  law  regulating  the  procedure  in      criminal  trials   generally,  but   it   may   contain      provisions specifying  a bar  of  time  for  particular      class of  cases which  are of  a special character. For      example, a  Land Revenue  Code may  be  a  general  law      regulating the  relationship between  the  revenuepayer      and the  revenue-receiver or  the  rent-payer  and  the      rentreceiver. It  is a general law in the sense that it      lays down the general rule governing such relationship,      but it may contain special provision relating to bar of      time, in  specified cases,  different from  the general      law of  limitation. Such  a law will be a ’special law’      with reference  to  the  law  generally  governing  the      subject-matter of that kind of relationship. A ’special      law’, therefore, means a law enacted for special cases,      in special  circumstances, in  contradistinction to the      general rules  of the  law  laid  down,  as  applicable      generally to  all cases  with  which  the  general  law      deals. In  that  sense,  the  Code  is  a  general  law

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

    regulating the  procedure for  the  trial  of  criminal      cases, generally;  but if  it lays down any bar of time      in respect  of special  cases in  special circumstances      like those  contemplated  by  s.  417(3)  &  (4),  read      together, it will be a special law contained within the      general law.  As the  Limitation Act  has  not  defined      ’special law’, it is neither necessary nor expedient to      attempt a  definition. Thus,  the Limitation  Act is  a      general law laying down the general rules of limitation      applicable to  all cases  dealt with  by the  Act;  but      there may  be instances  of a special law of limitation      laid  down   in  other  statutes,  though  not  dealing      generally with  the law  of  limitation.  For  example,      rules framed  under Defence  of India  Act, vide  S. M.      Thakur v.  The State  of Bihar  (I.L.R. 30  Pat.  126);      Canara  Bank   Ltd.  v.   The  Warden   Insurance   Co.      (I.I.R.(1952) Bom.  1083) dealing with the special rule      of limitation  laid down in the Bombay Land Requisition      Act (Bom.  XXXIII of 1948). These are mere instances of      special laws  within the  meaning of  s. 29(2)  of  the      Limitation Act". If in  the above extracted passage dealing with the scope of Section 29(2)  of the  Limitation Act  one reads  the  words "local law"  for the words "special law" and the word "area" for the words "special cases", the meaning of the expression "local law" becomes clear.      Now, there  is only  one general  law of Limitation for the entire  country and  it is the Limitation Act, 1963. All other laws  prescribing periods  of  limitation  are  either special or local laws. They are 503 special laws  if they  prescribe periods  of limitation  for specified cases.  They are local laws if their applicability is confined  to specified  areas. If  Section 32 and Section 29(2) of  the Limitation  Act 1963  are  read  together,  it becomes clear  that the  only  law  of  Limitation  that  is repealed is  the Limitation  Act, 1908,  and all  other laws dealing with  limitation, special or local are saved and are to be read into the Limitation Act, 1963.      We, therefore,  arrive at  the conclusion that the body of provisions  in the Portuguese Civil Code dealing with the subject of  Limitation of  suits etc.  and in  force in  the Union Territory  of Goa,  Daman and  Diu only is "local law" within the  meaning of  Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. As  stated earlier  these provisions  have to  be read into the  Limitation Act,  1963, as  if the  Schedule to the Limitation Act  is amended  mutatis mutandis. No question of repugnancy arises.  We agree  with the Judicial Commissioner that the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code relating to Limitation continue to be in force in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.      We do  not think  that it  is necessary to consider the other  submissions   of  the   learned   Counsel   for   the respondents. In  the result  both the  appeals are dismissed with costs. S.R.                                      Appeals dismissed. 504