Appellant and late Kamakshya Kumar, husband of Dipti Dasgupta Respondent No.
An inventory was made in the said suit by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.
Furthermore, Respondent No.
One lis was in relation to the declaration of title as also possession, another one was in respect of damages for wrongful detention of specific movable properties.
1 was stored was known to Respondent No.
She also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.
She knew thereabout.
50,000/ for wrongful detention of her belongings including garments and personal effects.
A companynter claim was filed by Respondent No.
The same was rejected.
1 in the said suit claiming damages for wrongful detention of her belongings on 24.06.1992.
88,000/ .
Only because in another legal proceedings by and between the appellant and Respondent No.
1 herein is their sister.
Allegedly, the appellant had put a lock, in a room where Respondent No.
1 Banjula used to stay, on 16.03.1987.
In support of its judgment, the Division Bench has placed strong reliance upon a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sarat Chandra Mukherjee v. Nerode Chandra Mukherjee and Others AIR 1935 Calcutta 405.
It was in that premise held to be a companytinuing wrong.
They had one more sister Bulbul Dastidar who died in November, 1987 .
The companynter claim, however, was treated to be a suit.
1 knew about the purported alleged wrongful act on the part of the appellant.
The amount of claim was purported to have been made on an allegation that validity of a National Saving Certificate companyld number be renewed and, thus, she had suffered a loss of Rs.
It was decreed.
A suit was filed by the appellant thereafter.
One of the questions which was raised in the appeal was as to whether the said companynter claim was barred by limitation.
If she had to claim damages for that act on the part of the appellant, she should have filed a suit within a period of three years from the said date.
Her cause of action was different and distinct from that of her brother.
She filed an application in the nature of pro intersse suo in the earlier suit.
What would be the period of limitation for raising a companynter claim in respect of wrongful detention of goods is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.A. No.
1 against the appellant inter alia for declaration of title in regard to their residential house situate at P 824, New Alipore, Kolkata.
It was a suit for declaration of plaintiffs right in respect of user of the lands on which certain sheds had been created as a passage which was obstructing thereto.
2, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and inventory of the goods of the said room was prepared, the same, in our opinion, would number give rise to a fresh cause of action for laying a claim for damages.Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
A suit was filed by Respondent No.
1 on 16.03.1987.
23472 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The suit was withdrawn.
71 of 2002.
2 herein are brothers.
