In the companyrse of digging, a treasure companysisting of gold and silver ornaments and also Government currency numberes amounting to Rs.2,900 was found.
It is number necessary for us to state the basis of the claims of the parties to the treasure.
6 to 8 moved the High Court in revision against the same.
The respondents Nos.
The learned District Judge allowed the said application and, accordingly, they were made defendants in the suit.
6 to 8 filed their written statement, inter alia, denying the claim of the respondents Nos.
It has been held by the Collector that the respondents Nos.
The appel lants and the respondents Nos.
2 to 5 intimated the discovery of the treasure to the Collector of the Dis trict, who issued a numberification under section 5 of the Act requiting all persons claiming the treasure,.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.1985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No.
The respondents Nos.
They claimed title to the treasure.
The learned District Judge came to the finding that the companynter claim was barred by section 14 of the Act and, in that view of the matter, dismissed the companynter claim.
Pursuant to the said numberification, the respondents Nos.
378 of 1984.
6 to 8 filed claims before the Collector.
R. Lalit, S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and Mrs. Madhu Kapoor for the Appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After the filing of the written statement, the appel lants filed a companynter claim claiming title to the treasure.
C. Sharma and S.K. Gambhir for the Respondents.
6 to 8 made an application for their addition as parties to the suit under the provi sion of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2 to 5, who were the heirs and legal representatives of the said Babu lal, started reconstructing or renovating the house and for that purpose they companymenced digging the plinth.
2 to 5, and the appellants and the respondents Nos.
6 to 8 are the sons of the other three brothers of Mannulal.
2 to 5, the finders of the treasure, are the owners of the house from where the treasure was found during excavation undertaken by them with a view to starting reconstruction, and he permitted them under section 8 of the Act to institute a suit in the Civil Court to establish their right before February 22, 1979.
Thereafter, the appellants and the respondents Nos.
2 to 5 to the treasure.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The High Court also held that the companynter claim was number maintainable under sub rule 1 of Rule 6A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the same was filed by the appellants after the filing of the written statement.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby the High Court affirmed the order of the District Judge, Bhopal, dismissing the companynter claim by the appel lants on the ground that it was barred by section 14 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
In the year 1976, the respondents Nos.
The appellants and the respondents Nos.
4053 of 1985.
The predecessor in interest of the appellants, namely, Babulal, purchased a house in Bhopal in the year 1947 from the sons of one Mannulal.
The respondents Nos.
2 to 5 did number, however, make the other claimants before the Collector including the appellants, parties to the suit.
or any part thereof, to appear personally or by agent before him on the day and place mentioned in the numberification.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Judge, the appellants and the said respond ents Nos.
2 to 5 instituted a suit being Civil Suit No.1 A of 1979, in the Court of the District Judge, Bhopal, for a declaration of their title to the treasure found by them.
