Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8308 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4836 of 2012]

Gothamchand Jain .. Appellant

Versus

Arumugam @ Tamilarasan .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We  are,  in  this  appeal,  concerned  with  the  

applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation

Page 2

2

Act,  1956,  vis-à-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.    

3. Appellant  herein  preferred  a  suit,  being  OS  No.  

295 of 1991 before the Additional Subordinate Judge,  

Pondicherry.   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  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.”

4. Defendant took up the matter in appeal before the  

IInd  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

Page 3

3

High Court  by filing Second Appeal  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  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 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?”

5. The  question  of  limitation  was  the  

primary issue which was raised before the High Court.  

It was submitted that 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

Page 4

4

D. Naik and Another (2001) 4 SCC 713, which dealt  

with  the  applicability  of  the  provisions  of  the  Indian  

Limitation  Act,  1963,  vis-à-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 in the matter of filing of 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 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  reversing  the  concurrent  

finding arrived at by the trial Court without examining

Page 5

5

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  in  Syndicate  Bank (supra).  

That was a case where this Court was examining the  

scope of  the  Limitation Act,  vis-à-vis,  the  Portuguese  

Civil  Code and not the provisions of the French Code  

Civil, which is one applicable to the present case.

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 is the Limitation Act, 1963 and, if that be so,  

the  suit  was  hopelessly  barred.   Under  such  

circumstances, learned counsel further submitted that  

there  was  no  reason  for  considering  the  other  two

Page 6

6

substantial questions of law, since the suit was rightly  

dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Discussion

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 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  

(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  shall  continue  to  be  in  force  in  Pondicherry  until

Page 7

7

amended  or  repealed  by  a  competent  Legislature or other competent authority:   

Provided that references in any such law  to the  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  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 Pondicherry.   

(2) For the purpose of facilitating the  application of  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 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 came into force on 20.12.1962, in

Page 8

8

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  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,  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 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  the  Union  Territory  of

Page 9

9

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.     

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  in  

Syndicate  Bank (supra),  wherein,  we  have  already  

indicated,  this  Court  considered  the  interaction  

between  the provisions of  the Indian Limitation Act,  

1963 vis-à-vis Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code.  

In that case, this Court held as follows:

“20. ……………….. In  any  event,  as  noticed  above, the 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  action  arising

Page 10

10

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 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 approach to  the issue will  not only yield to an absurdity  but  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 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 wake of the factum of the Limitation Act  

coming into existence 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.

Page 11

11

Piedade Barreto v.  Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca  

(1979) 3 SCC 47, stood overruled.  This Court also held  

that there is one 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  Diu,  

prescribing  a  different  period  of  limitation  within  the  

meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and 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 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

Page 12

12

specific 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 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 governed by the Portuguese  

Civil  Code.   The Court  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  amended,  has  adopted  several  such  

legislations  in  the  State  of  Pondicherry,  but  the  Act

Page 13

13

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 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 were rightly  

not  answered.  The  appeal,  therefore,  lacks  in  merits  

and accordingly dismissed.

……………………….…J      (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J      (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, September 18, 2013