23 April 1996
Supreme Court
Download

NATHU RAM AND OTHERS Vs MANPHOOL AND OTHERS

Bench: PUNCHHI,M.M.
Case number: Appeal (civil) 2134 of 1978


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NATHU RAM AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANPHOOL AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/04/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. THOMAS K.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 462        JT 1996 (5)   380  1996 SCALE  (4)56

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave is  against the judgment and order  of a  learned Single  Judge of  the High Court of Punjab and  Haryana at  Chandigarh dated 10-10-1977 in Civil Revision No.1097 of 1976 and CM 1996-CII/76.      One Roopa  had a  few sons  which  included  Sadda  and Dallu. In  the line  of Sadda, there occasioned an adoption. The adopted person was Puran. That adoption was questionable at the instance of the reversioners existing in the lines of the  other   sons.  The  gripping  parties  in  the  instant litigation not only involves Puran (the adopted son) but the reversione in  the line  of Dallu,  and those  are Birbal, a great grandson  of Dallu,  Aaidan -  a grandson of Dallu and Nathu -  another  great  grandson  of  Dallu.  When  Puran’s adoptive mother  gifted some  ancestral land  to a  stranger then Nathu was in his mother’s womb but the other two namely Birbal and  Aaidan were  existent.  Nathu  after  birth  and coming of age claimed that he had limitation to question the gift by the adoptive mother of Puran as also the adoption of Puran and  thus filed a suit claiming properties of Sadda by reversion arraying  Puran as  the  principal  defendant  and Birbal and Aaidan as interested defendants; besides arraying some  others   including  some  reversiones  as  defendants. Apparently, at a point of time, Nathu-plaintiff got in terms with Puran  and on  settling the  matter with  him  made  an application to  the Trial Court on 25-10-1975 for withdrawal of the suit. On the very same day, allegedly priorly, Birbal and Aaidan  the defendants who shared interests of reversion with Nathu, prayed for being transposed as plaintiffs to the suit. lt  is in  this situation  that the  Trial  Court  was confronted with  the riddle as to which application deserved disposal first,  i.e. the  application for withdrawal of the suit  or   the  application   for  transposition   of  those defendants as  plaintiffs. It,  by a set of reasoning, opted for the  transposition first  and the  withdrawal later  and

2

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

thus kept  the suit  survived but the High Court reversed it in revision  putting the  withdrawal  application  first  in priority,  rendering   the  application   for  transposition redundant, dismissing the suit as withdrawn. It is this view of the High Court which is under challenge.      It is undisputed that per se neither Aaidan nor Birbal, the interested  defendants in  the suit,  had any  surviving right to  sue because  the period of limitation qua them had run out.  The extended period of limitation, which Nathu had on account  of his  being in  the womb  of his mother on the date when limitation started, was personal to him and nobody could  under  his  shadow  claim  extension  of  limitation, standing apparently  on opposite  sides. It  would not  have made the  slightest difference  if the  interests  of  these three were treated common because concededly Nathu alone had the extended  right to  sue and not birbal,and Aaidan. Their capacity to  sue had  to be  viewed  separately.  Since  the factum of  Nathu being  the plaintiff  by itself  could  not extend the period of limitation for Birbal and Aaidan, their transposition would  not have  conferred on  them any better capacity or  right. In  such a  situation it  would not have made  the  slightest  difference  as  to  which  application deserved priority  in disposal as both could have been taken up together,  and the  end-result in  any event,  would have been to  hold that  Birbal and Aaidan could not on their own file or  pursue the  suit, even  if transposed as plaintiffs which had  to  be  dismissed  being  beyond  the  period  of limitation.      In this  view  of  the  matter,  we  do  not  think  it appropriate to  interfere in  the orders  of the High Court. the appeal  therefore fails  and  is  hereby  dismissed.  No costs.