GOTHAMCHAND JAINversusARUMUGAM @ TAMILARASAN

                      [2013] 10 S.C.R. 181


                     GOTHAMCHAND JAIN                              A
                                v.
                ARUMUGAM @ TAMILARASAN
                (Civil Appeal No. 8308 of 2013)
                     SEPTEMBER 18, 2013
                                                                   B
       [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

        Limitation Act, 1963 - Art. 54 - Law of limitation in the
  Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile French
  Establishment - Suit for specific performance of contract filed C
  at Pondicherry in 1991 - Suit resisted on the ground of
- limitation - Applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act,
  1963, vis-a-vis, Article 2262 of the French Code Civil - Held:
  The Limitation Act was passed by the Parliament on
  5.10.1963 - Since by that time, the Union Territory of D
  Pondicherry had become part of India, the Limitation Act
  automatically extended to the then Pondicherry and
  consequently, came into force in the Union Territory of
  Pondicherry on 1.1.1964- Consequently, it is not Article 2262
   of the French Code Civil that applied to the suit in question, E
  but Art.54 of the Limitation Act - Said suit having been filed
   beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/Art.54 of the
   Limitation Act, was clearly barred by limitation - French Code
   Civil - Art. 2262.

      The applicability of the provisions of the Indian            F
  Limitation Act, 1963, vis-i-vis, Article 2262 of the French
  Code Civil, said to be the governing law of limitation in
  the Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile French
  Establishment, came to be considered in the instant
  appeals.                                                         G

       The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance
  of the contract before the Additional Subordinate Judge,
  Pondicherry in the year 1991. The suit was resisted, inter
                               181                                 H
    182      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A alia, on the ground of !Imitation. The trial Court held that
  Article 2262 of French Code Civil was applicable to the
  Union Territory - Pondicherry which provided that the
  limitation for original cause of action is thirty years and
  accordingly, the suit claim was not time barred. The High
B Court, however, held that it is Article 54 of the Indian
  Limitation Act, 1963 that would apply in the matter of filing
  of the suit in Pondicherry and not Article 2262 of the
  French Code Civil and that consequently, the suit filed for
  specific performance of the contract, was not saved by
c Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act which provided that
  the suit be filed within three years of the date of
  agreement. Hence the present appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

D       HELD:1.1. The de jure merger of the erstwhile French
   Territory of Pondicherry took place on 16.8.1962 following
   the Treaty of Cession concluded between France and
   India on 28.5.1956 establishing the cession of the French
   Establishments by France to India in full sovereignty. The
E Limitation Act, 1963 was passed by the Parliament on
   5.10.1963. By that time, the Union Territory of Pondicherry
   had become part of India. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the
   Limitation Act, 1963 says that it extends to the whole of
   India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Since the
F Union Territory of Pondicherry having become part of
   India, the Limitation Act automatically extended to the
   then Pondicherry. The Limitation Act, 1963,
 . consequently, came into force in the Union Territory of
   Pondicherry on 1.1.1964. [Paras 8, 10] [186-B-C; 187-F-H]

G      1.2. By virtue of the Limitation Act, 1963, the French
    Law of Limitation which had been in force till 1.1.1964,
    was impliedly repealed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The
    Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968, as amended,
    has adopted several legislations in the State of
H
          GOTHAMCHAND JAIN v. ARUMUGAM @                        183
                   TAMILARASAN
    Pondicherry, but the Act which governs limitation is the           A
    general law of the land that is the Indian Limitation Act.
    Consequently, it is not Article 2262 of the French Code
    Civil that applies to the suit in question, but Section 54
    of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Under such
    circumstances, as rightly held by the High Court, the suit         B
    filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under
    Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is clearly
    barred. [Paras 11, 14) (188-A-B; 189-H; 190-A-C]

        Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik and Another (2001)            C
    4 sec 713: 2001 (2) SCR 714 - relied on.
        Justiniano Augusto De. Piedade Barreto v.Antonio
    Vicente Da Fonseca (1979) 3 SCC 47: 1979 (3) SCR 494 -
    held overruled.
                                                                       D
                          Case Law Reference:
•
        2001 (2) SCR 714           relied on             Para 5
        1979 (3) SCR 494           held overruled        Para 12
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON : Civil Appeal No.                E
    8308 of 2013.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 25.08.2011 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 383 of 2010.
                                                                       F
         R. Nedumaran, Movita for the Appellant.

       V. Prabhakar, R. Chandrachud, Jyoti Prashar for the
    Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     G
        K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Leave granted.

         2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the applicability
    of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1956, vis-a-vis,
                                                                       H
    184       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A Article 2262 of the French Code Civil, said to be the governing
  law of limitation in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile
  French Establishment.

         3. Appellant herein preferred a suit, being OS No. 295 of
    1991 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry.
8
    The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground of limitation,
    which was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However,
    on the plea of limitation, the trial Court held as follows:

          "12. On Issue No. 3: - Article 2262 of French Code Civil
C         shows that the limitation for original cause of action is thirty
          years and it is a well settled law that the said provision is
          applicable to the Union Territory - Pondicherry.
          Accordingly, suit claim is not time barred, Hence this issue
          is answered in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff."
D
       4. Defendant took up the matter in appeal before the llnd
  Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, but the judgment/decree
  of the trial Court dated 25.11.1994 was confirmed. The matter
  was carried in appeal to the High Court by filing Second Appeal
E No. 383 of 2010. Following substantial questions of law were
  framed by the High Court:

          "1. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an
          error in law in pronouncing a Judgment without considering
          and answering the question regarding readiness and
F         willingness on the part of the respondent/plaintiff to perform
          his part of the contract?

          2.    Whether the lower appellate Court has committed
          an error in not adverting to the issue regarding limitation
          when the same has been specifically raised in the trial
G
          Court and also in the grounds of appeal?

          3.    Whether the Courts below have erroneously held that
          the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the case?"

H         5. The question of limitation was the primary issue which
      GOTHAMCHAND JAIN v. ARUMUGAM@                           185
     TAMILARASAN [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
was raised before the High Court. It was submitted that A
provisions of the Indian Limitation Act govern the law of
limitation, so far as the Union Territory of Pondicherry is
concerned and not Article 2262 of the French Code Civil.
Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Syndicate
Bank v. Prabha D. Naik and Another (2001) 4 SCC 713, B
which dealt with the applicability of the provisions of the Indian
Limitation Act, 1963, vis-a-vis, Article 535 of the Portuguese
Civil Code in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, the
High Court took the view that it is Article 54 of the Indian
Limitation Act, 1963 that would apply ir1 the matter of filing of     c
the suit in Pondicherry and not Article 2262 of the French Code
Civil. Consequently, it was found that the suit filed for specific
performance of the contract, was not saved by Article 54 of the
 Indian Limitation Act which provided that the suit be filed within
three years of the date of agreement. The appeal was 0
 accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial
Court was reversed by the High Court. Hence the present
 appeal.

     6. Shri R. Nedumaran, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, submitted that the High Court was not justified in         E
reversing the concurrent finding arrived at by the trial Court
without examining the other two substantial questions of law
framed by the High Court. Learned counsel also submitted that
the concurrent finding of facts ought not have been reversed
by the High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court     F
in Syndicate Bank (supra). That was a case where this Court
was examining the scope of the Limitation Act, vis-a-vis, the
Portuguese Civil Code and not the provisions of the French
Code Civil, which is one app~icable to the present case.
                                                                      G
     7. Shri V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, on the other hand, contended that the ratio of the
decision in Syndicate Bank (supra) would squarely apply to the
facts of the present case and the provisions are pari materia
and the High Court has rightly held that the law that is applicable   H
is the Limitation Act, 1963 and, if that be so, the suit was
    186       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   hopelessly barred. Under such circumstances, learned counsel
    further submitted that there was no reason for considering the
    other two substantial questions of law, since the suit was rightly
    dismissed on the ground of limitation.

    Discussion
6
       8. We may notice that de jure merger of the erstwhile
  French Territory of Pondicherry took place on 16.8.1962
  following the Treaty of Cession concluded between France and
  India on 28.5.1956 establishing the cession of the French
C Establishments by France to India in full sovereignty. The
  Parliament enacted the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962
  (Act 49 of 1962) to provide for the administration of Pondicherry
  and for matters connected therewith. The said Act came into
  force on 15.12.1962. Section 4 of the Pondicherry
D (Administration) Act, 1962 deals with continuance of existing
  laws and their adaptation, which reads as under:

          "4.Continuance of existing laws and their adaptation.-
          (1) All laws in force immediately before the appointed day
          in the former French Establishments or any part thereof
E
          shall continue to be in force in Pondicherry until amended
          or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent
          authority:

                 Provided that references in any such law to the
F         President or Government of the French Republic shall be
          construed as references to the Central Government,
          references to the Governor of the French Establishments
          in India, to the Commissioner of the Republic for the
          French Establishments in India, to the Chief Commissioner
G         for the French' Establishments, to the Chief Commissioner
          of the State of Pondicherry or to the Chief Commissioner,
          Pondicherry shall be construed as references to the
          Administrator of Pondicherry and references to the State
          of Pondicherry shall be construed as references to
H         Pondicherry.
      GOTHAMCHA~D JAIN v. ARUMUGAM @                         187
     TAMILARASAN [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
          (2} For the purpose of facilitating the application of    A
    any such law in relation to the administration of Pondicherry
    and for the purpose of bringing the provisions of any such
    law into accord with the provisions of the Constitution, the
    Central Government may, within three years from the
    appointed day, by order, make such adaptations and              B
    modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as
    may be necessary or expedient and thereupon every such
    law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and
    modifications so made."

     9. By the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which      C
came into force on 20.12.1962, in the First Schedule to the
Constitution under the heading "II. The Union Territories", after
entry 8, the following entry was inserted, namely:

    "9. Pondicherry: The territories which immediately before       D
    the sixteenth day of August, '96, were comprised in the
    French Establishments in India known as Pondicherry,
    Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam."

     Later, by the Pondicherry (Alteration of Name) Act, 2006,
                                                                    E
instead of "Pondicherry", the word "Puducherry" was inserted
with effect from 1.10.2006.

     10. The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (Act 20
of 1963) was enacted to provide for Legislative Assemblies
and Ministries for the Union Territories. It received the assent    F
of the President on 10.5.1963. The Limitation Act, 1963 was
passed by the Parliament on 5.10.1963. By that time, the Union
Territory of Pondicherry had become part of India. Clause 2 of
Section 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963 says that it extends to the
whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Since         G
the Union Territory of Pondicherry having become part of India,
the Limitation Act automatically extended to the then
Pondicherry. The Limitation Act, 1963, consequently, came into
force in the Union Territory of Pondicherry on 1.1.1964.
                                                                    H
    188       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A       11. The question that we have to consider is whether, by
  virtue of the Limitation Act, 1963, the French Law of Limitation
  which had been in force till 1.1.1964, was in any manner
  repealed or modified by the Limitation Act, 1963. We can draw
  considerable sustenance from the ratio laid down by this Court
B in Syndicate Bank (supra), wherein, we have already indicated,
  this Court considered the interaction between the provisions of
  the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 vis-a-vis Article 535 of the
  Portuguese Civil Code. In that case, this Court held as follows:

          "20 ..................... In any event, as noticed above, the
c         Portuguese Civil Code, in our view, could not be read to
          be providing a distinct and separate period of limitation
          for a cause of action arising under the Indian Contract Act
          or under the Negotiable Instruments Act since the Civil
          Code ought to be read as one instrument and cause of
D         action arising therefrom ought only to be governed
          thereunder and not otherwise. The entire Civil Code ought
          to be treated as a local law or special law including the
          provisions pertaining to the question of limitation for
          enforcement of the right arising under that particular Civil
E         Code and not dehors the same and in this respect the
          observations of the High Court in Cadar Constructions that
          the Portuguese Civil Code could not provide for a period
          of limitation for a cause of action which arose outside the
          provisions of that Code, stands approved. A contra
F         approach to the issue will not only yield to an absurdity bu.t
          render the law of the land wholly inappropriate. There would
          also be repugnancy insofar as application of the Limitation
          Act in various States of the country is concerned: Whereas
          in Goa, Daman and Diu, the period of limitation will be for
G         a much larger period than the State of Maharashtra - the
          situation even conceptually cannot be sustained having
          due regard to the rule of law and the jurisprudential aspect
          of the Limitation Act." ·

          12. This Court also held that it cannot but hold that in the
H
       GOTHAMCHAND JAIN v. ARUMUGAM @                          189
      TAMILARASAN [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
 wake of the factum of the Limitation Act coming into existence       A
 from 1.1.1964, Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code cannot
 but be termed to be impliedly repealed and it is on this score
 that the decision of this Court in Justiniano Augusto De.
 Piedade Barreto v. Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca (1979) 3
 SCC 47, stood overruled. This Court also held that there is one      s
 general law of limitation for the entire country, being the Act of
 1963, and the Portuguese Civil law cannot be termed to be a
 local law or a special law applicable to the State of Goa,
 Daman and Oiu, prescribing a different period of limitation
 within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and        c
 the question of saving of local law under the Limitation Act,
 1963 does not and cannot arise.
       13. We may, in this case, refer to the Pondicherry (laws)
  Regulation, 1963 (No. 7 of 1963) which deals with the
  regulation to extend certain laws to the Union Territory of         D ·
  Pondicherry. Reference may also be made to the Pondicherry
  (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968. By virtue of those legislations,
  the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Transfer of Property Act,
  1882 and various other enactments were brought into force in
. Pondicherry. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether specific    E
  legislations containing the subjects under which the cause of
  action had arisen, would govern the field or the procedural law
  assuming it would have its due application in replacement of
  the governing statute. This question was also pointedly
  considered by this Court in Syndicate Bank (supra) and the          F
  Court took the view that the cause of action of the suit, namely,
  money lent and advanced in terms of the agreement stands
  squarely governed by the Contract Act read with the
  Negotiable Instruments Act by reason of the admitted execution
  of the promissory note and, as such, cannot be said to be           G
  governed by the Portuguese Civil Code. The Cou·rt held that
  the Portuguese Civil Code cannot be read to be providing
  distinct and separate period of limitation for cause of action
 arising under the Indian Contract Act and other related laws.
      14. Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968, as               H
    190      SUPREME COURl REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A amended, has adopted several such legislations in the State
  of Pondicherry, but the Act which governs limitation is the
  general law of the land that is the Indian Limitation Act.
  Consequently, it is not Article 2262 of the French Code Civil
  that applies to the suit in question. but Section 54 of the Indian
B Limitation Act, 1963. Under such circumstances, as rightly held
  by the High Court, the suit filed beyond the period of limitation
  prescribed under Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act. 1963
  is clearly barred. Since the suit itself is barred by the law of
  limitation, the other questions of law framed by the High Court
c were rightly not answered. The appeai, therefore, lacks in merits
  and accordingly dismissed.

    B.B.B.                                     Appeal dismissed.