Bombay High Court
Mulchand Panachand Gujar vs Kesari Khupchand Gujar on 14 April, 1910
Equivalent citations: (1910)12BOMLR682
JUDGMENT Basil Scott, C.J.
1. It is contended in this appeal that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that an application for execution of a decree, which had been passed in favour of two Hindu females during their minority, was not barred.
2. The application was made in 1908 and at that date the age of the elder decree-holder was 27 and that of the younger decree-holder 21. There had previously been several applications for the execution of the decree, for, Ramji, the brother of the deceased guardian of the minors, had in 1904,1905 and 1906, presented different darkhasts purporting to act as the guardian of both the decree-holders.
3. Now, as a guardian had been appointed for them they did not attain the age of majority until 21 and at the time of the applications in 1904, 1905 and 1906, the younger decree-holder was still a minor.
4. It is, however, contended that the elder had attained the age of majority and that, therefore, the execution of the decree must be barred as regards her. It is, however, pointed out by the Full Bench in Zamir Hasan v. Sundar (1899) I.L.R. 22 All 199, that by reason of the first explanation of Article 179 of the Limitation Act an application, made by a representative of one of joint decree-holders, takes effect in favour of all; therefore, though the elder decree-holder, Kesari, had attained majority the applications made by Ramji, as next friend of Thaku, took effect in favour of both.
5. It is also argued that under Section 8 of the Limitation Act of 1877, or, at all events under Section 7 of the Limitation Act of 1908, the elder decree-holder, Kesari, could from the time of her attainment of majority make an application under Section 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 and give a good discharge to the judgment-debtor in respect of the judgment-debt.
6. That contention, however, is inconsistent with the decisions in Govindram v. Tatia (1895) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 383, and Zamir Hasan v. Sundar (1899) I.L.R. 22 All. 199, and the applicability of those cases has not ceased owing to an] change in the words of Section 7 of the Limitation Act of 1908.
7. I, therefore, think that the learned Judge in the lower Court came to the right conclusion and I dismiss this appeal with costs.