{"id":7808,"date":"1963-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963"},"modified":"2018-08-11T18:22:49","modified_gmt":"2018-08-11T12:52:49","slug":"kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963","title":{"rendered":"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 260, \t\t 1964 SCR (1) 982<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKAUSHALYA RANI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGOPAL SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/09\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR  260\t\t  1964 SCR  (1) 982\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1964 SC1099\t (5,23)\n R\t    1970 SC1093\t (7)\n D\t    1974 SC 480\t (15)\n D\t    1976 SC 105\t (5,6,7)\n R\t    1979 SC 984\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nCode of Criminal Procedure, s. 417(3), (4)-Accused acquitted\nby  Additional Sessions judge-Application for special  leave\nto  appeal  to High Court against acquittal filed  after  60\ndays  of order-Provisions of Limitation Act, s.\t 5,  whether\napplicable-Special law-Limitation Act (9 of 1908) s. 29(2).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t was committed to the Court of\tSessions  to\nstand\this  trial.   However,\the  was\t acquitted  by\t the\nAdditional  Sessions  Judge  on\t December  31,\t1959.\t The\nappellant  filed on April 22, 1960, an application under  s.\n417(3)\tof the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High  Court\nfor Special Leave to appeal from the order of the Additional\nSessions Judge.\t The High Court dismissed the appeal on\t the\nground that the application for special leave to appeal\t was\nbarred\tby  time.   It was held that the  provisions  of  s.\n417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were in the  nature\nof  a  special\tlaw  and  the provisions  of  s.  5  of\t the\nLimitation  Act were not applicable.  The appellant came  to\nthis Court after getting a certificate of fitness to  appeal\nto this Court.\tDismissing the appeal,\nHELD  : (i) The special rule of limitation laid down  in  s.\n417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a special law of\nlimitation Governing appeals by private prosecutors and s. 5\nof the Limitation Act does not apply in view of s.  29(2)(b)\nof.  the Limitation Act.  A special law means a law  enacted\nfor  special  cases, in special\t circumstances,\t in  contra-\ndistinction  to\t the  general  rule  of\t law  laid  down  as\napplicable  generally  to all cases with which\tgeneral\t law\ndeals.\t In that sense, the Code of Criminal Procedure is  a\ngeneral\t law  regulating  the procedure\t for  the  trial  of\ncriminal cases Generally.  When it lays down the bar of time\nin respect of special cases, in special circumstances,\tlike\nthose contemplated by s. 417(3) and (4), it is a special law\ncontained  within the general law. likewise, the  Limitation\nAct is a general law laying down general rules of limitation\napplicable to all cases dealt with by the Act, but there may\nbe  instances  of a special law of limitation laid  down  in\nother statutes, though not dealing generally with the law of\nLimitation.\nS.M Thakur v. The State of Bihar, 30 Pat. 126; Canara Bank\nLtd.  v. The Warden Insurance Co., I.L.R.<\/a> [1952] Bom.  1083;\nMohammad Ibrahim v. Gopi Lal, A.I.R. (1958) All. 691; Rajjan\nLal v. State I.L.R. [1960] 2 All. 761; Viswanathan Chettiar,\nin re. (1957) 1 M.L.). 150; Coimbatore Municipality v. K. L.\nNarayanan  A.I.R. (1958) Mad. 416; P. F. Subbareddi,  V.  D.\nPapireddi,\n983\nA.I.R.\t(1957)\tAndh.  Pra. 406; In re\tParchuri  Adeshamma,\nA.I.R.\t(1958)\tAndh.  Pra. 230; Anjanabai'  v.\t Yeshwantrao\nDaulatrao Dudhe, I.L.R. [1961] Bom. 135, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 126  of
\n1962.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1961 of
\nthe Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 1960.
\nVidya Dhar Mahajan, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSINHA,\tC.  J.-In this appeal, on a certificate\t of  fitness
\ngranted\t by  the Punjab High Court, the\t only  question\t for
\ndetermination  is  whether  the provisions of S.  5  of\t the
\nLimitation  Act\t (9  of 1908) apply to\tan  application\t for
\nspecial\t leave to appeal, from an order of acquittal,  under
\nsub-s.\tof S. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  (to  be
\nhereinafter  referred to as the Code).\tThe certificate\t was
\ngranted\t by the High Court “because there is a\tconsiderable
\nconflict of opinion in the various High Courts”.
\nIn this case we are not concerned with the factual aspect of
\nthe controversy between the parties.  It is not,  therefore,
\nnecessary  to  set  out\t in any detail\tthe  facts  of\tthat
\ncontroversy.  It is enough to state that the respondent\t was
\ncommitted to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial  under
\ns.  493, or in the alternative under S. 495, of\t the  Indian
\nPenal Code, on the charge that he had, by deceit, caused the
\nappellant  who\twas not lawfully married to him\t to  believe
\nthat  she  was\tso married and in  that\t belief\t had  sexual
\nintercourse  with her.\tIn the alternative, it\twas  alleged
\nthat he married the appellant after concealing the fact that
\nhe was already married.\n<\/p>\n
The  prosecution  was launched by a  petition  of  complaint
\nfiled\tby  the\t appellant  before  the\t  Magistrate.\t The
\nrespondent  was\t tried\tby the\tAdditional  Sessions  judge,
\nGurdaspur,  who\t by his judgment dated\tDecember  31,  1959,
\nacquitted him on the ground that the prosecution had  failed
\nto prove that there was a marriage between the\t,complainant
\nand the accused.  The appellant filed an ap-\n<\/p>\n
984<\/span><\/p>\n
application on April 22, 1960, very much later than 60\tdays
\nfrom  the date of the order of acquittal, for special  leave
\nto appeal from that order, under s. 417(3) of the Code.\t  In
\na  note appended to the application it was stated “that\t the
\ntime  in  filing the present petition might be\texcluded  in
\nview  of the fact that the District  Magistrate,  Gurdaspur,
\nmoved  the  Advocate-General in filing the appeal  under  s.
\n417,  Criminal\tProcedure Code, which if  filed\t would\thave
\nobviated  the necessity of filing this petition.  But.,\t the
\nState Government declined to file appeal and the  intimation
\nto this effect was received on April 1, 1960.  The  original
\nletter\tis attached herewith; from this date, it  is  within
\ntime.”\tOn  this application, a Division Bench of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  passed  the order “Admitted”, on September  1,  1960.
\nWhen  the appeal was placed for hearing before\tFalshaw\t and
\nGrover, JJ, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf  of
\nthe  respondent that the appeal was out of time.   While  it
\nwas admitted on behalf of the appellant that the appeal\t was
\nfiled long after the period prescribed by sub. s. (4) of  s.
\n417  of\t the  Code, it was argued that the  delay  could  be
\ncondoned  under\t s. 5 of the Limitation Act,  and  that\t the
\ndelay had been so condoned by the Bench when the appeal\t was
\nadmitted.\n<\/p>\n
The  Bench  pointed  out  that\tas  a  matter  of  fact\t  no
\napplication had been made by the appellant for extension  of
\nthe period of limitation for filing the petition for special
\nleave.\t The Bench further held that it could not accede  to
\nthe contention that the Bench while admitting the appeal had
\ncondoned the delay.  The Court, on an elaborate\t examination
\nof  the provisions of the Code, and of the  Limitation\tAct,
\ncame  -to the conclusion that the bar of time prescribed  by
\nsub-s. (4) of s. 417 was a ‘special law’ within the  meaning
\nof s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and that, therefore, s. 5
\nof  the\t Limitation  Act  would\t not  be  available  to\t the
\nappellant  for\tcondoning the admitted delay in\t filing\t the
\napplication  for  special leave.  The High Court  noticed  a
\nnumber\tof  decisions  of  the\tdifferent  High\t Courts\t and
\npreferred to accept the view that the provisions of sub.  s.
\n(4)  of s. 417 of the Code were in the nature of a  ‘special
\nlaw’ though the Code as a whole was a general law.  In\tthat
\nview  of the matter, the High Court dismissed the appeal  on
\nthe ground that the application for
\n985<\/span>
\nspecial\t leave to appeal was barred by time.  The  appellant
\napplied\t to  the  High\tCourt  and  obtained  the  necessary
\ncertificate  of\t fitness and has come up to  this  Court  on
\nappeal\tfrom that order of the High Court.  The\t High  Court
\n,naturally did not go into the merits of the controversy. We
\nhave,  therefore,  to consider whether the High\t Court.\t was
\nright  in  coming  to  the  conclusion\tthat  s.  5  of\t the
\nLimitation  Act could not be available to the appellant\t for
\ncondonation of the delay in filing the application for\tspe-
\ncial leave under sub-s. (3) of s. 417 of the Code.
\nBefore\twe  refer  to the different decisions  of  the\tHigh
\nCourts,\t taking conflicting views on the only  question\t now
\nbefore\tus, we would examine the relevant provisions of\t the
\nCode and the Limitation Act.  Section 417 of the Code is  in
\nthese terms : –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “417(1)  Subject\tto the\tprovisions  of\tsub-
\n\t      section (5), the State Government may, in\t any
\n\t      case, direct the Public Prosecutor to  present
\n\t      an  appeal to the High Court from an  original
\n\t      or appellate order of acquittal passed by\t any
\n\t      Court other than a High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(2)If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case\tin
\nwhich the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special
\nPolice\tEstablishment  constituted under the  Delhi  Special
\nPolice\tEstablishment Act, 1946 (XXXV of 1946), the  Central
\nGovernment may also direct the Public Prosecutor to  present
\nan appeal to the High Court from the order of acquittal.
\n(3)If  such  an order of acquittal is passed in\t any  case
\ninstituted  upon  complaint  and  the  High  Court,  on\t  an
\napplication  made to it by the complainant in  this  behalf,
\ngrants special leave to appeal from the order of  acquittal,
\nthe  complainant  may  present such an appeal  to  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
(4)No  application under sub-section (3) for the grant\tof
\nspecial leave to appeal from the order of acquittal shall be
\nentertained by the High Court after the expiry of sixty days
\nfrom the date of that order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  If, in any Case, the application under sub-section
\n(3)  for the grant of special leave to appeal from an  order
\nof,  acquittal\tis  refused, no appeal from  that  order  of
\nacquittal  shall  lit  under sub-section (1).”
\n63-2  S.  C.  India\/64
\n986<\/span>
\nIt  will  appear that the section, which was recast  by\t Act
\nXXVI  of  1955,\t for the first time made  provision  for  an
\nappeal by a private complainant from an order of  acquittal,
\nif he obtained special leave to appeal from the High  Court.
\nPrevious  to  the Amending Act aforesaid, it  was  only\t the
\nState Government which could come up in appeal from an order
\nof acquittal.  The section, thus, provides for an appeal  by
\nthe  State Government, as also by the complainant in a\tcast
\ninstituted upon a complaint, provided that special leave  of
\nthe  Court  is\tobtained.  So far as  appeal  by  the  State
\nGovernment is concerned, s. 417 itself does not provide\t for
\nany period of limitation.  The period of limitation for such
\nan  appeal is laid down in Art. 157 of the  Limitation\tAct.
\nPrevious to the amendment of 1955, the period of  limitation
\nfor  such an appeal by the State Government was six  months,
\nwhich  was reduced to three months by the Act XXVI  of\t1955
\nwith  effect  from  January 1, 1956.  Hence, so\t far  as  an
\nappeal\tby the State Government is concerned, the period  of
\nlimitation  thus  reduced is a part of the  general  law  of
\nlimitation  and is amenable to the operation of s. 5 of\t the
\nLimitation Act.\t But the provisions of sub-s. (3) and (4) of
\ns. 417 arc in the nature of ‘special provisions’  introduced
\nfor  the first time by the Amending Act XXVI of 1955.\tSub-
\nsection\t (4),  in  terms, is  very  precise  and  mandatory,
\nprohibiting the High Court from entertaining any application
\nfor special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal after
\nthe expiry of 60 days from the date of such an order.  On  a
\nperusal\t of  the  bare provisions of  the  section  and\t the
\nhistory\t of  the law on the subject, two things\t are  clear;
\nnamely, (1) that the legislature thought it expedient in the
\ninterest of justice and public policy that the period of six
\nmonths\tallowed\t to the State Government to appeal  from  an
\norder  of  acquittal  should  be  curtailed  by\t half,\tthus
\nevincing  its clear intention to cut short the\tduration  of
\nthe  litigation\t which had already resulted in an  order  of
\nacquittal;  and\t (2) that in certain cases  the\t High  Court
\nshould\thave  the  power  of granting  special\tleave  to  a
\ncomplainant, as distinguished from the State Government,  to
\ncome  up  in appeal from an order of acquittal, but  at\t the
\nsame  time  indicating in clear and unambiguous\t terms\tthat
\nsuch an application must be made within 60
\n987<\/span>
\ndays from the date of the order of acquittal.  This rule  of
\n60  days bar of time has been specifically provided  for  in
\nthe  section itself, unlike the general rule  of  limitation
\napplicable  to an appeal against acquittal, at the  instance
\nof  the\t State Government.  In our opinion,  therefore,\t the
\nposition  is  clear  that  so far as  appeal  by  the  State
\nGovernment  is\tconcerned,  the law  of\t limitation  is\t the
\ngeneral\t law laid down in the Limitation Act (Art.  157)  to
\nwhich  s. 5 would apply by its own force.  But in so far  as
\nan  appeal  by\ta  private  prosecutor\tis  concerned,\t the
\nlegislature  was  astute to specifically lay down  that\t the
\nfoundation for such an appeal should be laid within 60\tdays
\nfrom  the  date of the order of acquittal.  In\tthat  sense,
\nthis rule of 60 days bar is a special law, that is to say, a
\nrule  of limitation which is specially provided for  in\t the
\nCode itself, which does not ordinarily provide for a  period
\nof  limitation\tfor  appeals or\t applications.\t It  is\t the
\ngeneral\t law of limitation, as laid down in  the  Limitation
\nAct,  which governs appeals ordinarily preferable under\t the
\nCode, vide Arts. 150, 154, 155 and 157.\t To such appeals the
\nprovisions of s.    5 would apply.\n<\/p>\n
It  has\t been observed in some of the cases decided  by\t the
\nHigh  Courts that the Code is not a special or a  local\t law
\nwithin\tthe meaning of s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act,\tthat
\nis  to say, so far as the entire Code is concerned,  because
\nit is a general law laying down procedure, gene-
\nrally,\tfor the trial of criminal cases.  But  the  specific
\nquestion  with\twhich we are here concerned is\twhether\t the
\nprovision  contained in s. 417(4) of the Code is  a  special
\nlaw.  The whole Code is indeed a general law regulating\t the
\nprocedure  in criminal trials generally, but it may  contain
\nprovisions specifying a bar of time for particular class  of
\ncases which are of a special character.\t For example, a Land
\nRevenue\t  Code\t may  be  a  general  law   regulating\t the
\nrelationship  between  the revenue-payer  and  the  revenue-
\nreceiver  or the rent-payer and the rent-receiver.  It is  a
\ngeneral law in the sense that it lays down the general\trule
\ngoverning  such\t relationship, but it  may  contain  special
\nprovisions  relating  to bar of time,  in  specified  cases,
\ndifferent  from the general law of limitation.\tSuch  a\t law
\nwill be a ‘special law’ with reference to the law  generally
\ngoverning the subject-matter of that kind of re-
\n64-2 S C  India\/64
\n988<\/span>
\nlationship.  A ‘special law’, therefore, means a law enacted
\nfor  special cases, in special circumstances, in  contradis-
\ntinction  to the general rules of the law laid down, as\t ap-
\nplicable  generally to all cases with which the general\t law
\ndeals.\tIn that sense, the Code is a general law  regulating
\nthe  procedure for the trial of criminal  cases,  generally;
\nbut  if it lays down any bar of time in respect\t of  special
\ncases in special circumstances like those contemplated by s.
\n417(3)\t&  (4),\t read together, it will\t be  a\tspecial\t law
\ncontained within the general law.  As the Limitation Act has
\nnot  defined  ‘special\tlaw’, it is  neither  necessary\t nor
\nexpedient to attempt a definition.  Thus, the Limitation Act
\nis a general law laying down the general rules of limitation
\napplicable to all cases dealt with by the Act; but there may
\nbe  instances  of a special law of limitation laid  down  in
\nother statutes, though not dealing generally with the law of
\nlimitation.   For  example, rules framed  under\t Defence  of
\nIndia  Act,  vide  S. M. Thakur v. The\tState  of  Bihar(1);
\nCanara Bank Ltd. v. The Warden Insurance Co.(2) dealing with
\nthe special rule of limitation laid down in the Bombay\tLand
\nRequisition  Act  (Bom.\t XXXIII of 1948).   These  arc\tmere
\ninstances of special laws within the meaning of s. 29(2)  of
\nthe  Limitation Act.  Once it is held that the special\trule
\nof limitation laid down in sub-s. (4) of s. 417 of the\tCode
\nis  a  ‘special\t law’ of limitation,  governing\t appeals  by
\nprivate prosecutors, there is no difficulty in coming to the
\nconclusion that s. 5 of the Limitation Act is wholly out  of
\nthe way, in view of s. 29(2) (b) of the Limitation Act.
\nBut the question is whether it can be said that even  though
\nthe  provisions\t of  s. 417(4) are  a  ‘special\t law’,\tthey
\nprescribe  a  different\t period\t of  limitation\t from\tthat
\nprescribed  by\tthe First Schedule of  the  Limitation\tAct,
\nbecause s. 29(2) applies where there is a difference between
\nthe  period  prescribed\t by  the  Limitation  Act  and\tthat
\nprescribed  by\tthe  special  law.   It\t is  said  that\t the
\nLimitation  Act does not prescribe any period of  limitation
\nfor an application for special leave to appeal from an order
\nof  acquittal at the instance of a private  prosecutor.\t  In
\nthe  first  instance,  the Limitation  Act,  Art.  157,\t has
\nprescribed the rule of limitation
\n(1) I.L.R. 30 Pat. 126.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  I.I.R. [1952] Bom. 1083.\n<\/p>\n
989<\/span><\/p>\n
in  respect of appeals against acquittal at the instance  of
\nthe  State.   Hence,  it  may  be  said\t that  there  is  no
\nlimitation  prescribed by the Limitation Act for  an  appeal
\nagainst\t an order of acquittal at the instance of a  private
\nprosecutor.   Thus,  there  is\ta  difference  between\t the
\nLimitation  Act\t and the rule laid down in s.417(4)  of\t the
\ncode in respect of limitation affecting such an application.
\nSection 29(2) is supplemental in its character in so far  as
\nit  provides  for the application of s. 3 to such  cases  as
\nwould  not come within its purview but for  this  provision.
\nAnd for the purposes of determining any period of limitation
\nprescribed by any special law, it has made the provisions of
\nthe  Limitation Act, referred in cl. (a) of sub-section\t (2)
\nof  section  29 applicable to such cases to  the  extent  to
\nwhich  they  are not expressly excluded by such\t special  or
\nlocal law, and cl. (b) of that subsection expressly lays  it
\ndown  that  the remaining provisions of the  Limitation\t Act
\nshall  not apply to cases governed by any special  or  local
\nlaw.  In our opinion, therefore, the provisions of the Code,
\nsupplemented by the provisions of s. 29(2) of the Limitation
\nAct, make it clear that s. 5 of the Limitation Act would not
\napply to an application for special leave to appeal under s.
\n417(3) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
That  is our conclusion based on the interpretation  of\t the
\nstatutes  in  question.\t But the High Courts  of  Allahabad,
\nAndhra Pradesh and Madras have taken the contrary view.\t  On
\nthe  other  hand, earlier decisions of\tthe  Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt at-id the Bombay High Court, to be presently  noticed,
\nhave  taken  the  view that what we have  indicated  is\t the
\ncorrect view of the legal position.\n<\/p>\n
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of
\nMohammad Ibrahim v. Gopi Lal (1) bad taKen the view that the
\nwords  of  sub.s.  (4)\tof s. 417 make\tit  clear  that\t the
\napplication under sub.s. (3) must be made within 60 days  of
\nthe order of acquittal, and that the High Court had no power
\nto  extend  the\t period\t of limitation,\t and  5.  5  of\t the
\nLimitation  Act\t did not apply to such\tcases.\t They  based
\ntheir conclusion entirely on the wording of sub. ss. (3) and
\n(4)  of\t s.  417 of the Code.  That Bench  decision  of\t the
\nAllahabad  High Court was overruled by a Full Bench of\tthat
\nCourt  in Rajjan Lel v. State(2).  The three Hon’ble  judges
\ncon-\n<\/p>\n
(1) A.I.R. (1958 All 691).\n<\/p>\n
(2)  I.L.R. [1960] 2 All. 761.\n<\/p>\n
990<\/span><\/p>\n
stituting  the full bench, in separate but concurring  judg-
\nments,\ttook  the view that the Code was not a\tlocal  or  a
\nspecial\t law  and  that\t s. 5  of  the\tLimitation  Act\t was
\napplicable to an application under s. 417(3) of the Code.
\nIn the Andhra Pradesh High Court a Division Bench was of the
\nsame  opinion  as  had been held by the Full  Bench  of\t the
\nAllahabad  High Court, but the decision was  obiter  because
\nthe  Court  dismissed the petition on the  ground  that\t the
\norder  of acquittal had been passed before the Amending\t Act
\nXXVI of 1955 came into force, so that the order of acquittal
\nwas not amenable to an appeal at the instance of the private
\nprosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
A  Single  Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  took\t the
\nview  that s. 5 was applicable to applications\tfor  special
\nleave under s. 417(4).\n<\/p>\n
In the Madras High Court, a Single Judge decided the case of
\nViswanathan  Chettiar. in re (1) and held that\t“section  1,
\nsub-section  (2)  of the Criminal Procedure Code  makes\t all
\nlaws applicable to Criminal Procedure Code including the Law
\nof  Limitation and nothing could prevent the appellant\tfrom
\ntaking\tadvantage  of section 5 of the Limitation  Act.”  He
\nalso  held that there was no difference between\t the  period
\nprescribed  by\tthe  law  of  limitation  and  the  Criminal
\nProcedure Code.\t Both these observations do not appear to be
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
Another Single Judge of the Madras High Court decided in the
\ncase  of Coimbatore Municipality v. K. L. Narayanan(2)\tthat
\ns.  5  of  the Limitation Act could be\tavailed\t of  by\t the
\nprivate\t prosecutor, but the learned judge did not base\t his
\ndecision  on the reasoning of the previous judgment of\tthat
\nCourt  but preferred to follow the reasoning adopted by\t the
\nAndhra\tPradesh\t High  Court  in  P.  F.  Subbareddi  v.  D.
\nPapireddi(3) and in re Parchuri Adeshamma(4).
\nIn  our\t opinion, the view taken by the Full  Bench  of\t the
\nBombay\tHigh Court in the case of Anjanabai  v.\t Yeshwantrao
\nDaulatrao Dudhe(5) is the correct one.\tIn that case it\t was
\n(1)(1957) 1 M.L.J 150.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. [1958] Mad. 416.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.T.R. [1957] And.\t Pra. 406.\n<\/p>\n
(4) A.I.R. [1958] And.\tPra. 230.\n<\/p>\n
(5) I.L.R. [1961] Bom. 135.\n<\/p>\n
991<\/span><\/p>\n
held  that the provisions of s. 417(4) were a ‘special\tlaw’
\nwithin\tthe meaning of s. 29(2) of the Limitation  Act.\t  In
\nthat  cast” the High Court has dealt with the  decisions  of
\nthe  different\tHigh  courts on the question  and  with\t the
\nreasonings  for\t those\tdecisions.  As\twe  agree  with\t the
\nconclusions of the High Court of Bombay, we do not think  it
\nnecessary  to repeat the observations made therein,  bearing
\non the reasons given by the High Courts of Allahabad, Andhra
\nPradesh and Madras for coming to contrary conclusions.
\nFor the reasons given above, We hold that the view taken  by
\nthe High Court of Punjab is entirely correct.  The appeal is
\naccordingly dismissed,
\nAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 260, 1964 SCR (1) 982 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj) PETITIONER: KAUSHALYA RANI Vs. RESPONDENT: GOPAL SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/09\/1963 BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) SHAH, J.C. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA CITATION: […]<\/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-7808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963 - 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\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-11T12:52:49+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\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-11T12:52:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963\"},\"wordCount\":3235,\"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\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963\",\"name\":\"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-11T12:52:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963\"}]},{\"@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":"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963 - 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\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-11T12:52:49+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\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963","datePublished":"1963-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-11T12:52:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963"},"wordCount":3235,"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\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963","name":"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-11T12:52:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushalya-rani-vs-gopal-singh-on-19-september-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kaushalya Rani vs Gopal Singh on 19 September, 1963"}]},{"@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\/7808","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=7808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}