LALA GUR PRASAD Vs. LAXMI DEVI
LAWS(ALL)-1965-1-4
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on January 12,1965

LALA GUR PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
LAXMI DEVI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KISANDAS RUPCHAND V. RACHAPPA VITHOBA SHILWANT [REFERRED TO]
L J LEACH AND CO LIMITED VS. JARDINE SKINNER AND CO [REFERRED TO]
PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL VS. KALGONDA SHIDGONDA PATIL [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR BUX SINGH VS. GANGA BUX SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN DAS VS. AMIR KHAN [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANJI MORARJI GOCULDAS VS. ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO LTD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

JAI DEVI VS. JODHI RAM [LAWS(DLH)-1970-4-26] [REFERRED]
HIRAK ROY CHOWDHURY VS. DULAL CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2001-8-57] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.D. Sahgal, J. - (1.)THE suit giving rise to this appeal was filed for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage by only one of the mortgagees of his share of money due under the mortgage without any prayer for enforcement of security by sale of the mortgaged property. THE suit was time-barred as the mortgage deed was executed on the 22nd of November, 1949 and the mortgage money was payable within three years, i.e., by the 22nd of November, 1952. THE period of limitation for such a suit being six years, it expired on the 22nd of November, 1958, the suit itself being filed on the 22nd of November, 1964.
(2.)WHEN faced with this situation, the plaintiff-appellant claimed that it was a suit for enforcing the mortgage security under Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act and not under Section 68 of that Act and he sought the permission for making the co-mortgagees also parties to the suit This application was made long after the expiry of the period of limitation and was rejected by the learned Civil Judge with the result that ultimately the suit itself was dismissed as time-barred. An appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Kheri who dismissed the same. This second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.
The only point for consideration in the case is as to whether the amendment ought to have been allowed and the two tower courts were wrong in rejecting the application for amendment.

The suit by one of the mortgagees only for a part of the share in the mortgaged property was not maintainable under Order XXXIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act as would appear from a Full Bench case of this Court in Rameshwar Bux Singh v. Ganga Bux Singh, AIR 1950 All 598. It was because of this that the appellant to make the other co-mortgagees also defendants in the suit But he came to move this application long after the period of limitation had expired, as the suit itself was filed on the last date of limitation if it could be treated as a suit for the enforcement of the mortgage security.

(3.)THE rule as laid down in Charan Das v. Amir Khan, AIR 1921 P.C. 50 is as follows: "That there was full power to make the amendment cannot be disputed, and though such a power should not as a rule be exercised where its effect is to take away from a defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases..... where such considerations are outweighed by the special circumstances of the case....".
In Bhagwanii Morarji Goculdas v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. AIR 1948 P.C. 100 the order of the High Court refusing leave to amend was upheld by the Privy Council because at the time the leave to amend was sought a new claim under the alleged implied agreement would have been barred by limitation.

;


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