SURAJ MAL Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions for the division bench are - " (1) Whether the case reported as AIR 1958 Rajasthan 206 and the view taken in 1971 RLW 492 require re-consideration regarding the applicability of Art. 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, on account of the legislative changes brought about by Arts. 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963? (2) If so, whether in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property based on title as well as on the assertion of prior posses- sion and subsequent dispossession or discontinuance of possession, Art. 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and not Article 142 thereof applied ?"

(2.) THE subject matter in litigation is a house situate at Sardarshahar. It belonged to one Ghanshyamdas who died in 1942, leaving behind his widow Mst. Narbada and two minor sons Mangilal and Laduram. THE suit is for possession based on dispossession.

(3.) SHRI L. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, with his usual erudition and consumate skill, tried to bring in Articles 64 and 65 of the new Act as aid to construction of Articles 142 and 144 on the hypothesis that the new Act was only declaratory and not remedial. It was said that, 'whatever be the legal position under the 1908 Act, the new Act 1963 had completely changed that legal position' and that, 'the subsequent Act of Parliament was a 'parliamentary exposition' of the law as it stood prior to the enactment of the 1963 Act and, there fore, even in respect of the suits filed earlier to the new Act, the plaintiff need not prove possession within 12 years of the suit for recovery of possession, if he establishes title to the suit property. ' It was, therefore, said that the dychotorny between the two classes of suits falling under Articles 142 and 144 was clearly brought out by enacting Articles 64 and 65 which, he asserts, as the learned Single judge has in his order of reference, was a 'parliamentary exposition' of law as it stood prior to the enactment of the new Act. According to him, Article 142 of Sch I of the Limitation Act, 1908, therefore, only applied to suits based on possessory title, i. e. , where the plaintiffs sought the relief of possession on the strength of his prior possession followed by subsequent dis-possession. In support of the contention, strong reliance was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in Nair Service Society vs. K. C. Alexandar (1 ). Learned counsel drew our attention to the long title of the Limitation Act, 1963 which shows that it is an act to consolidate and amend the law for the limitation of suits, etc. He also relied on the objects and reasons of the new Act. We fail to approciate this line of reasoning.