ISHWARSINGH S O CHUNNUSINGH Vs. KRISHNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Application raises an important question relating to law of limitation as to whether section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to a proceeding instituted under Chapter VII of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

(2.) ISHWARSINGH Chunnusingh and five others submitted an application purporting to be under sections 192 and 195 of the Indian Succession Act on 4th March. 1987. Since Chunnusingh s/o Laxman Singh, owner of the property in dispute, died on 15-8-1986, the application was beyond the period of limitation of six months prescribed under section 205 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Nanded was pleased to reject an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the applicant-revision petitioners - vide his order dated 15-6-1988, which is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Revision Application.

(3.) SHRI Joydeep Chaterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the delay caused was that of only 18 days which was explained by assigning sufficient cause and the learned Judge should have condoned the same. Shri A. G. Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised contention that section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to the proceedings under Chapter VII of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The grounds on which the proposition professed by Shri Godhamgaonkar rests are firstly the language used in section 205 prescribing the special limitation and secondly the nature of the proceedings under Chapter VII. According to him, the use of the imperative word must in section 205 indicates the exclusion of extension of limitation by application of provisions of sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act, 1963. He further submits that Chapter VII of the Indian Succession Act provides for proceedings to meet an emergency. If there is an imminent danger to the property of deceased person, then only it can be protected by appointment of curator resorting to the provisions of Chapter VII. Therefore, the limitation is not a provision relating to the procedure but it has something to do with the substance.