Case: Kishen Parshad Vs Har Narain Singh. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Judges | Macnaghten, Mersey, Robson, Arthur Wilson and Ameer Ali, JJ. |
| Issue | Hindu Law |
| Citation | 1911 (13) BomLR 359 |
| Judgement Date | February 01, 1911 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Robson, J.
-
The question to be determined in this appeal is whether or not the suit is barred by the Indian Limitation Act of 1877.
-
There is no doubt that when first brought, it was well within the statutory period of three years, but it is contended by the respondents that it was not then brought by all the proper and necessary plaintiffs, and that afterwards, when the record was amended in that respect, the statutory time had expired.
-
The suit was commenced by the first three plaintiffs on the record. They are the managing members of an undivided Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara law, and, as such managing members, they carry on the business of money-lenders together at Hanumanganj in the district of Ballia, as a firm, under the name and style of Manorath Bhagat Dhana Ram.
-
The other members of the joint family do not participate in the management of that business or "shop," as it is called, and the loan transactions out of which the claim arises were negotiated and concluded by the members of the said firm alone, with the first three defendants, who are also members of another undivided Hindu family.
-
The accounts between the parties began in 1895, and balances were periodically agreed between them until the 9th August 1901, when the last balance was struck and the period of limitation began to run. On that date the defendants duly acknowledged the correctness of the balance then appearing in the plaintiff's books, and executed a searched or agreement admitting it to be due and payable by them. It is found by the learned Subordinate Judge that this agreement was made between the defendants and the first three plaintiffs, who accordingly brought their action for the balance in question on the 3rd June 1904. The defendants objected that all the members of the family to which the plaintiffs belonged ought to be joined with them as plaintiffs. On the 22nd August 1904, the original plaintiffs, while denying that the other members of the family were necessary parties, and alleging themselves to be the proprietors and managers of the firm, yet with a view to removing the defendants' objection for what it was worth prayed for leave to add the other members of the family as plaintiffs. Leave was accordingly given, and the amendment was made on the 8th September 1904. By this time the three years allowed by Act XV of 1877, 2nd Schedule, Article 64, had expired, and it became necessary to determine whether or not...
To continue reading
Request your trial