BHANWAR LAL Vs. LILA DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil Second Appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the District Judge of Baran dated the 18th of January 1950 by which a decree passed by the court of the Civil Judge, Baran, of the 15th of November 1949 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Bhanwerlal, who is the appellant before this Court, filed a suit against Lila Dhar on the 21st of July 1949 with the allegations that he pledged with the defendant certain gold ornaments weighing 15-1/2 Tolas for a sum of Rs. 275/- on the 8th of June 1926, stipulating the rate of interest at one rupee per cent per month. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant on the 16th of July 1947 asking him to redeem the pledge of ornaments and on failure of the defendant to respond to the notice of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The defendant Liladhar admitted the pledge of gold ornaments, as stated by the plaintiff, but resisted the claim on the basis of the law of limitation of Kota State, and also for the reason that the plaintiff had, by agreement on the 1st of November 1929, corresponding to Kartik Badi Amawas, Svt. year 1986, relinquished his claim for redemption of his ornaments. The first court decided the question of limitation in favour of the plaintiff and rejected the plea of the defendant regarding relinquishment by the plaintiff of his claim to redeem the ornaments. The learned Civil Judge also held that the weight of gold of the said ornaments was 15-1/4 and not 15-1/2 tolas, as alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint. He, therefore, passed a decree for redemption of gold ornaments weighing 15-1/4 tolas on payment of the principal amount alongwith interest. The defendant went in appeal to the court of the District Judge, who dismissed the suit holding that the claim was barred by the law of limitation of Kota State. In this appeal, the plaintiff claims that the law of limitation applicable to the present suit is contained in Article 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, and the suit is within time with reference to that provision of law. Sec. 1 of the law styled 'miad Sama't appears at Page 3, in a book published under orders of Mahakma Alia Khas, Kota State, in the year, 1931. The said Hidayat was printed in the Kota Printing Press and bears a crest of the Kota State on its title page. It purports to contain the laws that stood unrepealed upto the 30th of September 1930. Sec. 1, Item 5 of the law of Mia'd Sama't of Kota State, if translated into English, shall run as follows : - (1) Pledge of movable property, (2) 12 years. (3) From the date of pledge.

(2.) THE learned counsel of the appellant concedes that if the law as contained in Hidayat Gair Munsukhshuda, Sigha Dewani of Kota State, printed and published in 1931 applies to this case, this| suit would be barred by limitation but his contention is that the provision of law contained in Hidayat Ghair Mansukhshuda Sigha Dewani, 1931, is not the law that was in force in Kota State at any time. THE argument of the learned counsel is that as it is not stated in the Hidayat Ghair Mansukhshuda, Sigha Dewani of 1931, with reference to the provision of law relating to limitation that it received the approval of His Highness of Kota, who was the legislative authority for Kota State at that time, the said publication of Hidayat Ghair Mansukhshuda, Sigha Dewani, cannot be accepted to contain the law of Kota State on the point of limitation. He has cited the decisions of this Court in Somnathmal vs. State of Rajasthan (1), State vs. Govind Singh (2) and Baboolal vs. Nathmal (3 ).