Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

98. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on Chhatra Kumari Devi v. Mohan Bikram Shah, AIR 1931 PC 196 (Z34). In that case Article 120 was applied to a suit by a beneficiary to enforce a trust arising under an agreement. Article 120 was held to be applicable to such a suit because neither Article 144 nor any other article in the Limitation Act was found to be specifically applicable to such a suit. This case also, therefore, does not help the appellant. If, for example in the present case, the amount was not charged on the land and Article 132 was not applicable for that reason and there had been no other article in the Limitation Act which could be applicable, then Article 120 would have been applicable. In this connection, the following observations of Rattigan, J., in a Bench case reported in 83 Pun Re 1906 page 306 at p. 307 (P), are relevant:

In this connection learned counsel for the appellants placed, reliance on AIR 1931 PC 196 (Z34). This case lays down that Article 144 of the Limitation Act is applicable only to a suit for possession by a person claiming to be the owner. The present suit is not for possession. Further, in the present suit the plaintiffs' do not claim to be the owners of the immovable property but merely claim an interest in it. Moreover, the defendants, in the present case, also do not claim ownership of the property by adverse possession against the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, this ruling far from supporting the appellant's argument goes against them.