BEHARI DASS Vs. JAGDISH
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-2-21
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 04,1952

BEHARI DASS Appellant
VERSUS
JAGDISH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAUNG BAW BYU V. MAUNG YAN SHIN [REFERRED TO]
BHAUSAHEB JAMBURAO Y. SONABAI [REFERRED TO]
JOTINDRANATH V. LODNA COLLIERY CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR V. MOTILAL [REFERRED TO]
FAQUIR BUX V. BELESHAR [REFERRED TO]
JADUBIR SINGH V. SHEO NARESH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SALAM V. ABDUL KHALIQ [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL V. JES RAJ [REFERRED TO]
KESHAR SUGAR WORKS VS. R C SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
UMDA VS. RUPCHAND [REFERRED TO]
MUKUNDA RAMKRISHNA VS. BISANSA SAKHARAMSA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MANAK CHAND VS. KEWAL CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1954-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHAYAT KHATRIAN BARAN VS. BHANWAR LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1954-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
GUMAN VS. LAXMAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1960-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR CHAND VS. BACH RAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-1965-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
NANUSAM VS. SITARAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1971-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
DHAN RAJ PUROHIT VS. L RS OF RAMSWAROOP [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-8-13] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bapna, J. - (1.)The appellant brought a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh, for a declaration that he was the Mahant of Vairagis of Pratapgarh and "in that capacity was entitled to claim certain dues from the defendants on the occasions of certain ceremonies mentioned in the plaint. He also claimed Rs. 10/- on account of the 'Bhandara' of the father of defendant No. 1, which according to the plaintiff had been wrongly realised by the defendants Nos. 2 to 5. All the defendants except Jugaldas denied the claim. Jugaldas, defendant No. 3, admitted being liable for Rs. 10/- to the plaintiff. The court passed a decree against Jugaldas for Rs. 10/- but dismissed the entire suit against the rest of the defendants. The plaintiff, thereupon, filed an appeal before the District Judge of Pratapgarh but it was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal and it is contended that the view of law taken by the learned District Judge is not correct.
(2.)The relevant dates are as follows: Date of judgment of the Civil Judge. 5th March, 1949, Date of signature on the decree by 10th March, 1949, the Civil Judge. Date of application by appellant for 12th March, 1949. copies of judgment and decree. Date on which copies were ready for 16th April, 1949. delivery of which the appellant had notice. Date of delivery of copies, 20th April, 1949. Date of presentation of appeal before 16th June, 1949, the District Judge. The court of the District Judge was closed from 15th May, 1949, to 15th June, 1949, as 15th May was Sunday and there were summer vacations from 16th May to 15th June, 1949.
(3.)Under Article 152 of the Limitation Act, the period prescribed for filing an appeal from the decree of the court of a Civil Judge to the court of a District Judge is 30 days and the time is stated to begin from the date of the decree or order appealed from.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.