Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NATHU RAM END 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 Sada, 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
reversioners in the line of Dallu, and those are Birbal, a
great grandson of Dallu; Aaidah - 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 reversionary 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, It 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
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 shedow 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 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.