Khanderao Shidramappa Desai vs Chanmallappa Shiddappa Torgal

Norman Macleod, C.J.—The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit lands from three defendants alleging that he was a permanent tenant of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the year 1916, the plaintiff had filed a suit to recover possession of the suit lands from the sons of his sub-tenant. He succeeded in obtain- ing a decree on December 19, 1917. The decree was confirmed in appeal. Meanwhile the sub-tenants handed the land over to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who leased it to defendant No. 3. When the plaintiff filed a Darkhast, he was obstructed in obtaining possession by defendant No. 3. So he filed a mis- cellaneous application to get the obstruction removed. Defend- ant No. 3 opposed the application which was dismissed on June 7, 1919.

The present suit was filed on July 30, 1923. Article 11 A of the Indian Limitation Act would apply to the suit. But the plaintiff contends that he is entitled to include the two months required to serve notice on defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who were Government wards at the time the cause of action arose. Notice was given to them u/s 31 of the Court of Wards Act on August 20, 1919. So that the period of limitation for filing a suit would be extended to August 7, 1920, u/s 15(2) of the Indian Limitation Act.

On May 20, 1920, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 ceased to be Government wards. It has been argued that because they ceased to be wards before the suit came on for hearing, therefore the plaintiff was no longer entitled to add the two months re- quired for giving them notice, to the period of limitation prescribed by Article 11 A. It would seem that the fallacy in that argument is too apparent to require demonstration. For if it were to succeed, it would follow that if a Government ward against whom notice had been served ceased to be a ward after the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act for filing a particular suit had expired, but before the additional period of two months had expired, then the plaintiff''s remedy was gone without any fault of his. For when he filed his suit he was entitled under Scetion 15 to add two months to whatever period was prescribed for bringing the suit.

Then it was suggested that because defendant No. 3 is the principal opponent, therefore the suit ought to have been time-barred as against him although it would have been in time against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. That is a most extra- ordinary suggestion to make. The suit is either good or bad against all the defendants. If it is in time against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 because plaintiff was entitled to add two months taken to give them notice as Government wards, it cannot be said that it is out of time as against defendant No. 3, because the plaintiff could not proceed against defendant No. 3 until notice was given. Therefore the order appealed against is right and both the appeals must be dismissed with costs.