{"id":216628,"date":"1973-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973"},"modified":"2017-08-05T16:35:34","modified_gmt":"2017-08-05T11:05:34","slug":"jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973","title":{"rendered":"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2508, \t\t 1974 SCR (1) 360<\/div>\n
Author: D Palekar<\/div>\n
Bench: Palekar, D.G.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJUGAL KISHORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDHANNO DEVI   (DEAD) BY L.RS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/08\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2508\t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 360\n 1973 SCC  (2) 567\n\n\nACT:\nCivil  Procedure Code., Order 33, Rule 2 and 3, Order 7\t and\n8--Sec.\t  149\tCivil  Procedure   Code-Pauper\t application\nsubsequently  with  drawn-Enlargment of time  by  Court\t for\npayment of court fee-Subsequent payment of court fee relates\nback to the presentation of pauper application and the\tsuit\nis  deemed  to\tbe presented from the  date  of\t the  pauper\napplication.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent, on January 1948, presented  on\t application\nunder Order 33, Rule 2 and 3 of the C.P.C. for permission to\nsue  as a pauper praying for the relief of possession  of  a\nhouse  to which she had an undisputed title.  On  26-2-1949,\nthe  plaintiffs\t pleader moved the Court  for  treating\t the\npauper\tapplication as a plaint and for giving three  months\ntime  for  the\tpayment of court fee.\tOn  default  by\t the\nrespondent,  the court dismissed the suit but  restored\t the\nsame  after  the plaintiff on November 12,  1949,  paid\t the\ncourt  fee  and the costs of the defendant.   The  appellant\ncontended  that\t the  application to  sue  as  pauper  being\ndismissed  on January 18, 1949, there was no  proceeding  p-\nending\tbefore\tthe  court thereafter  and,  therefore,\t the\nrestoration  of the proceeding and the payment of Court\t fee\nwere  without  any authority_of law and hence the  suit\t was\nbarred\tby limitation.\tAssuming, it was contended that\t the\nCourt  had  authority to treat the application to sue  as  a\npauper a,; a plaint, the application had been converted into\na  plaint  on November 12, 1949 and on that date,  the\tsuit\nwould  be barred by time.  After losing in trial  court\t and\nthe  High  Court, the appellant agitated the matter  in\t the\nSupreme Court.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD:(1) Since the suit under section 26 of the\t C.P.C.\nmay be instituted not merely by presentation of a plaint but\nalso  in such manner as may be prescribed, the\tpresentation\nof  the\t application  by  pauper  u\/s  33  would  amount  to\ninstitution of the suit. [3-63E-F]\nVijay  Protap Singh v. Dukh Maran Natli Singlz and  Another,\n[1962] 2 Suppl.. S.C.R. 675, relied upon.\n(2)A suit by a pauper or a person claiming to be a  pauper\nmust   be  regarded  as\t instituted  on\t the  dale  of\t the\npresentation  of the, application for permission to  sue  in\nforma pauperis. [364E-F]\n(3) Where the application is granted under Order33 Rule\t 7\nand 8, the     application  is regarded as the\tplaint\tfrom\nthe date ofits\tpresentation,  where  before  the  final\ndisposal of the application to sue asa\t  pauper,     the\nplaintiff      offers  to  pay the court fee.  treating\t the\napplication asplaint, or the Court agreeing to treat it\t a,\na plaint enlarges the time for the payment of the court fee,\nthe application must' be regarded as a plaint instituted  on\nthe date when the application was presented. [364F-H],\nStuart\tSkinner\t v. William Orde, 2  Allahabad,\t 241  (P.C.)\nDevendar  KumarBharti  V. Mahanta Raghttrai  Bharti,  A.I.R.\n1955 Allahabad, 154, (F.D.), cited with approval.\n(4)In  the  present case, the actual order passed  by  the\nCourt on July 18, 1949 was not an order rejecting the plaint\nbut rejecting the application to sue is a pauper.  The\tsaid\norder had become otiose since the respondent did not want to\nProceed\t as a nauper.  There was, in fact, no  rejection  of\nthe plaint.  U\/s. 149 C.P.C.. the Court can enlarge the time\nfor  the  pavment  of the court fee and the  effect  of\t the\npayment\t is as if. the court fee is paid on the date of\t the\npresentation  of  the plaint.  The suit must,  therefore  be\nregarded  as  filed  on\t January  2.  1949  and\t was  within\nlimitation. [366D-F]\n361\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPEAL  No. 1326 of 1967 : Appeal  by  special  leave
\nunder  article\t136 of the Constitution of  India  from\t the
\njudgment  and decree dated the 31-3-1963: of  the  Allahabad
\nHigh Court in First Appeal No. 92 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
S.T. Desai, M. Natesan, A.T.M. Sampath and E.C.\t Agarwala
\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.C.  Cliagla, Lalit Kumar Gupta and A.-G. Ratnaparkhi,\t for
\nthe respondent No. 1 (a).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nPALEKAR,   J.\tThe   appellant\t is  the   son\t and   legal
\nrepresentative\tof  the\t original defendants  to  the  suit,
\nKedarnath  and Chanda Devi.  The respondents are  the  legal
\nrepresentatives of the deceased plaintiff, Dhanno Devi.
\nOn  January  2, 1948 Bhanno Devi  presented  an\t application
\nunder Order 33, Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
\nfor permission to sue as a pauper in the Court of the  First
\nCivil  Judge,  Kanpur.\tTIC plaint part of  the\t application
\nprayed\tfor the relief of possession of a house situated  in
\nthe  city of Kanpur on the allegation that the house was  of
\nthe  ownership of one Budhu Lal-her father.  Budhu Lai\tdied
\nin 1918 and on his death his widow Jumma Devi inherited\t the
\nproperty.  On Jumna Devi’s death on December 26, 1935 Dhanno
\nDevi,  as  the\tdaughter, was entitled\tto  succeed  to\t the
\nproperty.   The\t defendants  were  in  possession  and\twere
\nfalsely refusing to yield up their possession to Dhanno Devi
\nand  hence she was required to file the suit.  A very  large
\namount had to be paid as court fee which Dhanno Devi was not
\nin  a position to pay and hence she prayed  that  permission
\nmay  be given to her to sue as a pauper.  The last date\t for
\nfiling the suit was December 26, 1947 but as the courts were
\nclosed\tfor  X’\t mas  vacation\tthe  application  had\tbeen
\npresented  to the court on January 2, 1948 i.e. on  the\t re-
\nopening\t of the court and thus it was claimed the  suit\t was
\nwithin limitation.\n<\/p>\n
The defendants disputed the plaintiff DhannoDevi’s
\ntitlecontending that she was not the daughter of Budhu\tLal.
\nThey alsocontend    ed\t that\tthe  suit  was\t barred\t  by
\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n
The Trial Court negatived the contentions of the  defendants
\nand decreed the suit.  That decree was confirmed by the High
\nCourt  of Allahabad by its Judgment dated March 31, 1965  in
\nFirst  Appeal No. 292\/1955.  The present appeal\t by  special
\nleave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.
\nSince both the courts held that Dhanno Devi had title to the
\nhouse  and the defendants had none, learned counsel for\t the
\nappellant did not, rightly, press the contention with regard
\nto  Dhanno Devi’s title to the property in suit.   The\tonly
\npoint pressed before us was with regard to limitation.\n<\/p>\n
362<\/span><\/p>\n
The  point  of limitation arises in this  way.\t As  already
\nstated the suit had been instituted on January 2, 1948 by an
\napplication for permission to sue as a pauper under Order 33
\nC.P.C.\tIf  that date is regarded as the date on  which\t the
\nsuit  was properly instituted then there is no dispute\tthat
\nthe plaintiff’s suit is in time.  But what happened was that
\non  February 26, 1949, before the question of pauperism\t was
\nformally decided by the court, the plaintiff’s pleader asked
\nfor  three  months  time  to  pay  the\tcourt  fee  on\t the
\napplication  by treating it as a plaint.  The court  granted
\nthis  prayer  and adjourned the case from time\tto  time  to
\nenable her to pay the court fee.  The last date so fixed was
\nJuly  15, 1949.\t On that day the plaintiff did\tnot  appear,
\nnor  did she pay the court fee and consequently on July\t 18,
\n1949 the following Order was passed by the court
\n\t      “Court  fee still unpaid.\t The  applicant\t did
\n\t      not  press  his application to  sue  in  forma
\n\t      pauperis but offered to pay court fee.  He did
\n\t      not do so till now.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t ORDER
\n\t      The   application\t to  sue  as  a\t pauper\t  is
\n\t      dismissed with costs.”\n<\/p>\n
On  August 13, 1949 the plaintiff filed an  application\t for
\nrestoration  of the case under Order 9 Rule 9  C.P.C.  After
\nhearing\t the defendants the court passed an order  that\t the
\nplaintiff  should first pay the court fee and the  costs  of
\nthe  defendants\t whereupon the application  for\t restoration
\nwould be considered.  Ace ordingly on November 12, 1949\t the
\nplaintiff paid the court fee and the defendant’s costs.\t  By
\nhis  order dated April 15, 1950 the learned Judge held\tthat
\nthe plaintiff had sufficient cause for not paying the  court
\nfee  in time and restored the proceeding to the\t file  after
\nsetting. aside the order referred to above.
\nWhen  the  court  fee was paid on the  application  i.e.  on
\nNovember  12, 1949, the suit would have been barred by\ttime
\nbecause,  as  already stated, the last date for\t filing\t the
\nsuit was January 2, 1948.  It is contended on behalf of\t the
\nappellant  that on the application to sue as a pauper  being
\ndismissed  on  January\t18, 1949, there\t was  no  proceeding
\npending\t before\t the court thereafter  and,  therefore,\t the
\nrestoration  of the Proceeding and the payment of court\t fee
\nwere without authority of law and hence the suit was  barred
\nby  limitation.\t Assuming, it was contended, that the  court
\nhad authority to treat the application to sue as a pauper as
\na  plaint, the application had been converted into a  plaint
\non  November  12, 1949 and on that date the  suit  would  be
\nbarred by time.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 26 of the Civil Procedure Code provides how a\tsuit
\nis to be instituted in a Civil Court.  Every suit, as stated
\nin that section, &hall be instituted by the presentation  of
\na  plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed.\t  On
\nJanuary\t 2, 1948 the plaintiff had presented an\t application
\nfor  permission\t to sue under Order 33 C.P.C. It was  not  a
\nsuit  instituted by the presentation of a plaint.   But\t the
\nsuit  was  obviously instituted in a  manner  Prescribed  by
\nOrder 33.  Rule 1 of Order 33 provides-\n<\/p>\n
363<\/span><\/p>\n
“Subject  to  the  following  provisions  any  suit  may  be
\ninstituted by a pauper”\n<\/p>\n
The manner of such institution is provided in rules 2 and  3
\nwhich are as follows
\n\t      “2.   Every application for permission to\t sue
\n\t      as  a  pauper shall  contain  the\t particulars
\n\t      required\tin  regard to plaints  in  suits;  a
\n\t      schedule of any movable or immovable  property
\n\t      belonging to the applicant, with the estimated
\n\t      value  thereof, shall be annexed thereto;\t and
\n\t      it shall be signed and verified in the  manner
\n\t      prescribed for the signing and verification of
\n\t      pleadings.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      3.Notwithstanding\t anything  contained  in
\n\t      these   rules,   the  application\t  shall\t  be
\n\t      presented\t to  the Court by the  applicant  in
\n\t      person,  unless he is exempted from  appearing
\n\t      in Court, in which case the application may be
\n\t      presented\t by  an\t authorised  agent  who\t can
\n\t      answer all material questions relating to\t the
\n\t      application,  and who may be examined  in\t the
\n\t      same  manner as the party represented  by\t him
\n\t      might  have  been\t examined  had\tsuch   party
\n\t      attended in persons
\nIn  short, according to rules 1, 2 and 3 a suit by a  pauper
\nis instituted when the application for permission to sue  as
\na pauper containing the necessary particulars of a plaint is
\npresented to the Court by the applicant in person or by\t his
\nauthorized  agent.  In the present case it is  not  disputed
\nthat this was done on January 2, 1948.\n<\/p>\n
There  has  been  a  conflict of  judicial  opinion  on\t the
\nquestion  whether  a  suit  could  be  held  to\t have\tbeen
\ninstituted when a petition to sue as a pauper was presented.
\nOne view is that until permission is granted under rule 7 of
\nOrder  33  there is no suit instituted.\t The other  view  is
\nthat  since  a suit under section 26 may be  instituted\t not
\nmerely\tby  the presentation of a plaint but  also  in\tsuch
\nmanner\tas  may\t be  prescribed\t the  presentation  of\t the
\napplication  by\t the pauper under Order 33 would  amount  to
\ninstitution  of the suit.  This latter view is\taccepted  by
\nthis  Court in Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran\t Nath  Singh
\nand  Another.<\/a>(1).  In that case Vijay Pratap Singh  filed  a
\npetition  for  leave  to  sue  in  forma  pauperis  for\t the
\ndeclaration of his title to Ayodhya Raj.  He claimed that on
\nthe  death of the widows of Maharaja Man Singh,\t the  estate
\ndevolved on his grand father, Ganga Dutt, who died in  1942.
\nThe  estate  was ‘thus ancestral property in  the  hands  of
\nRamjivan, the father of the plaintiff, who thus got interest
\nin  the same by reason of his birth.  Ramjivan was made\t one
\nof the defendants to the suit.\tThe plaintiff’s petition  to
\nsue as a pauper was rejected by the Subordinate Judge  under
\nOrder 33 rule 5(d) on the ground that the allegations in the
\napplication  did  not show a cause of action.  It is  to  be
\nnoted  that  the court had not decided the issue  about\t his
\npauperism  because that could be done only under  Rule\t7(3)
\nafter  trial  of the issue under rule 6. On  such  rejection
\nRamjivan-the father applied to the court to be transposed as
\nthe petitioner but that application was also rejected.\tThis
\ncourt held that the rejection of both these applications was
\nimproper because, in the first case, the
\n(1)[1962] (2) Suppl, S, C. R. 675.\n<\/p>\n
364<\/span><\/p>\n
court  had to see under rule 5 (d) whether the,\t allegations
\nmade in the petition showed a cause of action and the  court
\nhad  no power to enter upon a trial of the issues  affecting
\nthe  merits  of\t the  claim  at\t that  stage.\tAs   regards
\nRamjivan’s application for transposition under Order 1\tRule
\n10  it\twas held that the application was  wrongly  rejected
\nbecause\t such  an  application.\t could\thave  been   legally
\nentertained  by the court because the suit had already\tbeen
\ninstituted.   It was pointed out that an application to\t sue
\nin forma pauperis is but a method prescribed by the Code for
\ninstitution  of\t a suit without payment of  court  fee\tand,
\ntherefore,   the   suit\t commences  from  the\tmoment\t the
\napplication  for  permission to sue in\tforma  pauperis,  as
\nrequired  by  Order 33 of the Code, is\tpresented.   Dealing
\nwith the point the court observed at page 685.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  are also of the view that the High  Court
\n\t      was in error in holding that by an application
\n\t      to sue in forma pauperis, the applicant  prays
\n\t      for  relief  personal to himself.\t  An  appli-
\n\t      cation  to  sue in forma pauperis,  is  but  a
\n\t      method prescribed by the Code for\t institution
\n\t      of  a suit by a pauper without payment of\t fee
\n\t      prescribed by the Court Fees Act, If the claim
\n\t      made  by the applicant that he is a pauper  is
\n\t      not established the application may fail.\t But
\n\t      there   is   nothing  personal  in   such\t  an
\n\t      application.   The  suit\tcommences  from\t the
\n\t      moment an application for permission to sue in
\n\t      forma pauperis as required by 0.33 of the Code
\n\t      of Civil procedure is presented, and O. 1,  r.
\n\t      10, of the Code of Civil Procedure would be as
\n\t      much applicable in such a suit as in a suit in
\n\t      which court fee had been duly paid.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Court has, therefore, finally resolved the conflict  by
\ndeclaring that the suit by a pauper or a person claiming  to
\nbe  a pauper must be regarded as instituted on the  date  of
\nthe  presentation of the application for- permission to\t sue
\nin  forma pauperis as required by rules 2 and 3 of Order  33
\nCivil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
As  regards  limitation\t for such a  suit  instituted  by  a
\npauper.\t the provisions of rule 8 of Order 33 are  relevant.
\nThat rule provides
\n\t      “Where the application is granted, it shall be
\n\t      numbered\tand registered, and shall be  deemed
\n\t      to  be  the plaint in the suit, and  the\tsuit
\n\t      shall proceed in all other respects as a\tsuit
\n\t      instituted in the ordinary manner, except that
\n\t      the  plaintiff shall not be liable to pay\t any
\n\t      court-fee (other than fees payable for service
\n\t      of  process)  in\trespect\t of  any   petition,
\n\t      appointment of a pleader or other\t proceeding
\n\t      connected with the suit.”\n<\/p>\n
In  view  of this provision there is no\t dispute  that\twhen
\npermission to sue as a pauper is granted by the court  under
\nrule  7 of that Order, the petition or application  must  be
\nregarded as a plaint filed on the day when, the\t application
\nwas presented to the court.\n<\/p>\n
There is, however, divergence of opinion with regard to\t the
\nlegal  position\t arising out of an order passed\t under\trule
\n7(3) refusing to
\n3 6 5
\nallow the applicant to sue as a pauper, One view is that  on
\nsuch  a\t refusal, the suit, which was  already\t‘instituted.
\ndoes  not come to an end, because, the application by  which
\nthe suit was commenced is a composite document comprising  a
\nplaint and a prayer to sue in forma pauperis and, therefore,
\nwhen  the  latter alone is refused, the suit does  not\tcome
\nautomatically to an end.  The proceedings can still continue
\nif court fee is paid on the application treated as a plaint,
\nin  which case the date for limitation would be the date  on
\nwhich the application was presented to the court.  See,\t for
\nexample,  Bhanu v. Dalmia and Co.(1) The other view is\tthat
\nwhen  the  application to sue as a pauper is  refused,\tthat
\nputs  an  end to the application, which is not\ta  composite
\ndocument,  and the court has no power thereafter  to  permit
\nthe  defunct  application  to  be revived  as  a  plaint  by
\naccepting  court  fee.\t See,  for  example  Chunna  Mal  v.
\nBhagwant  Kishore.(2).\tHow far this view can  be  sustained
\nafter  this Court’s decision in Vijay Pratap Singh  v.\tDukh
\nHaran  Nath Singh,<\/a> referred to above, is a matter  which  we
\nare  not  called  upon\tto decide  in  the  present  appeal.
\nNevertheless,  it  must\t be noted that\tthere  is  almost  a
\nconcensus of opinion that where, before the formal  disposal
\nof the application to sue as a pauper, the plaintiff  offers
\nto pay the court fee treating the application as his plaint,
\nor,  the court, agreeing to treat it as a  plaint,  enlarges
\nthe time for payment of the court fee, the application\tmust
\nbe  regarded  as  a plaint instituted on the  day  when\t the
\napplication was presented.  See : Stuart Skinner v.  William
\nOrde(3),   Devender  Kumar  Pharti,  v.\t  Mahanta   Raghuraj
\nBharti(4).   This  proceeds on the view that the  court\t has
\npower to permit the application to sue in forma pauperis  to
\nbe  treated as plaint and to extend the time, if  necessary,
\nfor  payment  of court fee on the document, in view  of\t the
\nfact that it contains all the necessary particulars for\t the
\npurpose of a plaint.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t appeal before us the plaintiff had offered  to\t pay
\ncourt  fee on the application regarded as a plaint  and\t the
\ncourt had agreed that this may be done.\t There is nothing in
\nOrder  33 Civil Procedure Code which prevents  an  applicant
\nfrom  telling  the  court  that though\the  had\t prayed\t for
\npermission to sue in forma pauperis, he is now in possession
\nof  funds  and\twould  like to pay  the\t Court\tfee  on\t the
\napplication treating it as a plaint.  Thereby, in effect the
\napplicant  withdraws his prayer for permission to sue  as  a
\npauper and requests the court not to apply the provisions of
\nOrder  33  to him.  If the court agrees, and,  generally  in
\npractice the court does agree, to treat the application\t as
\na  plaint,  in\tview of the fact that it  contains  all\t the
\nnecessary  particulars required in a plaint, there could  be
\nno objection to the suit being treated as one instituted by,
\nthe  presentation  of  a plaint.  In the  present  case,  as
\nalready\t stated. even before, the issue regarding  pauperism
\ncame for trial and decision the plaintiff offered to pay the
\nrequisite fee on the application treating it as a plaint and
\nthe  court agreed to that course.  The plaintiff prayed\t for
\nthree  months time to Pay the court fee by  her\t application
\ndated  February\t 26,  1949 and the  court  acceded  to\tthat
\nrequest and adjourned the proceedings from time to time,  on
\nseveral
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1959 M. P. 169.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. 1936, Allahabad, 584.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  2 Allahabad, 241 (P.  C.)
\n(4)  A. I.R. 1955 Allahabad, 154 (F.  B.)
\n366<\/span>
\noccasions.   The plaintiff was finally granted time  to\t pay
\nthe  court  fee until July 15, 1949  but  unfortunately\t the
\nplaintiff did not attend the court on that day, nor was\t the
\ncourt fee paid.\t Hence the court passed the Order dated July
\n18,  1949 expressly saying that the application to sue as  a
\npauper is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Now  the above Order dismissing the application to sue as  a
\npauper\twas,  to say the least, otiose.\t The  plaintiff\t had
\nalready\t withdrawn  his prayer for permission to  sue  as  a
\npauper\tand the court had agreed to the withdrawal  of\tthat
\nprayer and to treat his application as a plaint.  From\tthat
\ntime  onward  the suit which had  been\tproperly  instituted
\ncould only proceed on the basis that the suit was as good as
\na suit filed on a plaint.  And in such a case it was open to
\nthe court under section 149 C.P.C. to order the plaintiff to
\npay the deficit court fee and enlarge the period to pay such
\ncourt  fee.   If the court fee is not paid, the\t only  order
\nthat  the court could have passed was to reject the.  plaint
\nunder Order 7 rule 1 1 (c) C.P.C. The rejection of a  plaint
\nis  a  decree  and  appealable\tas.  such.   The   question,
\ntherefore,  is whether in this case there was any  rejection
\nof  the\t plaint for non-payment of the deficit\tcourt  fee,.
\nThe  actual order passed by the court on July 18, 1949\tdoes
\nnot show that the plaint had been rejected.  What the  court
\ndid  was to reject the plaintiff’s application to sue  as  a
\npauper which was a redundant order because the prayer to sue
\nas  a  pauper  had  been  withdrawn  much  earlier  and\t the
\napplication to sue as a pauper, as such, did not survive for
\nbeing dismissed on July 18, 1949.  In law, therefore,  there
\nwas  no rejection of the plaint in the suit and,  therefore,
\nthe  suit  continued  to  remain  on  the  file.   While  it
\ncontinued on the file the plaintiff applied to the court and
\npaid  the court fee ,as ordered.  On the acceptance  of\t the
\ncourt  fee  by the court, the document, namely,\t the  plaint
\nwould  by virtue of Section 149 C.P.C., have the same  force
\nand  effect  as\t if  such fee had been\tpaid  in  the  first
\ninstance viz. on the date it was presented to the court i.e.
\nJanuary\t 2, 1948.  In our view therefore, the suit  must  be
\nregarded  as  properly filed on January 2,  1948;  and\tthat
\nbeing admittedly the last date on which the suit could\thave
\nbeen legally filed to avoid the bar of limitation, the\tplea
\nof  limitation made on behalf of the defendants\t must  fail.
\nIn the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.B.W.\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n367<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2508, 1974 SCR (1) 360 Author: D Palekar Bench: Palekar, D.G. PETITIONER: JUGAL KISHORE Vs. RESPONDENT: DHANNO DEVI (DEAD) BY L.RS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/08\/1973 BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. ALAGIRISWAMI, A. CITATION: 1973 AIR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1973-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-05T11:05:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-05T11:05:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973\"},\"wordCount\":3123,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973\",\"name\":\"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-05T11:05:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-05T11:05:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973","datePublished":"1973-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-05T11:05:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973"},"wordCount":3123,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973","name":"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-05T11:05:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-dhanno-devi-dead-by-l-rs-on-13-august-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jugal Kishore vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) By L.Rs on 13 August, 1973"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216628","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216628"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216628\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}