BALCHAND Vs. GIRJASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 698/8. The trial Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 544/8/ - and interest at annas four per cent per month on Rs. 398/8/ -. The plaintiff took an appeal claiming a decree for the claim disallowed. The respondent filed cross -objections. The learned Additional District Judge, Gwalior, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and, allowing the cross -objections, dismissed the plaintiff's suit as barred by time.

(2.) A preliminary objection is raised by Shri Raghunandan Swarup that a second appeal does not lie because, being a money suit, it was cognizable by Small Cause Court and the value of the suit as also of the appeal is less than Rs. 1,000. I find that the suit was instituted on April 21, 1954. The value of the suit exceeded Rs. 500. Section 102, C.P.C., as it stood on the date of the institution of the suit, was no bar to a second appeal to this Court. It is true that by a subsequent amendment of that section for the words "Rs. 500" the words "Rs. 1,000" were substituted, but this amendment cam into effect on January 1, 1957. This amendment obviously could not take away the vested rights which had accrued to the parties on the date of the institution of the suit.

(3.) REGARDING the question of limitation the short facts are that the bond on which the suit was based was dated October 28, 1948. Promise to repay the loan was within six months. Thus the money became payable on April 28, 1949. Thereafter, on April 25. 1952 as alleged by the plaintiff the defendant acknowledged the debt. This suit was instituted an April 21, 1955. The transaction took place in the territories of the farmer Gwalior State where the Gwalior State Limitation Act was in force and which provided six years period of limitation for a suit for money lent. When Madhya Bharat was formed, the Indian Limitation Act was adapted, and brought into force on July 16, 1949. In that Act it was provided in section 4 (2) that any suit, for which the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act was shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by the Gwalior State Limitation Act, could be instituted within the period of two years next after the coming into force of the Indian Limitation Act. This provision: was construed by the learned Additional District Judge, as has been pressed before me also, so as to put a dead line on the expiry of two years. In other words, all suits ought to have been instituted by July 16, 1951 and since the acknowledgment was made on April 25, 952, it was an acknowledgment of a time -barred debt Shri Raghunandan Swarup relied on 1953 MBLJ 754 in support of his contention that the debt became a time -barred debt on July 17, 1952.