ivil Appeal No 4053 of 1985
From the Judgment and Order dated 2511985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No 378 of 1984
UR Lalit SS Khanduja YP Dhingra and Mrs Madhu Kapoor for the Appellants
TC Sharma and SK Gambhir for the Respondents
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 counter claim by the appel lants on the ground that it was barred by section 14 of the  hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The High Court also held that the counter claim was not 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 predecessor in interest of the appellants namely Babulal purchased a house in Bhopal in the year 1947 from the sons of one Mannulal
The appellants and the respondents Nos
6 to 8 are the sons of the other three brothers of Mannulal
In the year 1976 the respondents Nos 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 commenced digging the plinth
In the course of digging a treasure consisting of gold and silver ornaments and also Government currency notes amounting to Rs2900 was found
The respondents Nos 2 to 5 intimated the discovery of the treasure to the Collector of the Dis trict who issued a notification under section 5 of 159 the Act requiting all persons claiming the treasure
or any part thereof to appear personally or by agent before him on the day and place mentioned in the notification
Pursuant to the said notification the respondents Nos 2 to 5 and the appellants and the respondents Nos 6 to 8 filed claims before the Collector
It has been held by the Collector that the respondents Nos 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
The respondents Nos 2 to 5 instituted a suit being Civil Suit No1 A of 1979 in the Court of the District Judge Bhopal for a declaration of their title to the treasure found by them
The respondents Nos 2 to 5 did not however make the other claimants before the Collector including the appellants parties to the suit
The appel lants and the respondents Nos
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
The learned District Judge allowed the said application and accordingly they were made defendants in the suit
Thereafter the appellants and the respondents Nos 6 to 8 filed their written statement inter alia denying the claim of the respondents Nos 2 to 5 to the treasure
They claimed title to the treasure
After the filing of the written statement the appel lants filed a counter claim claiming title to the treasure
It is not necessary for us to state the basis of the claims of the parties to the treasure
The respondents Nos 2 to 5 filed an application praying that the counter claim should be dismissed contending that it was barred by limitation as prescribed under section 14 of the Act and that it was also not maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6A1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The learned District Judge came to the finding that the counter claim was barred by section 14 of the Act and in that view of the matter dismissed the counter claim
Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Judge the appellants and the said respond ents Nos 6 to 8 moved the High Court in revision against the same
The High Court upheld the order of the learned District Judge that the counterclaim was barred by limita tion as prescribed by section 14 of the Act
The High Court further held that the counter claim having been filed after the filing of the written statement it was not maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6A1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Hence this appeal by special leave
160 At this stage it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act
Section 4 of the Act provides inter alia for the giving of notice by the finder of treasure to the Collector containing the details of the treasure
The treasure may be deposited in the nearest Government Treasury or the finder may give the Collector such security as the Collector thinks fit to produce the treasure at such time and place as he may from time to time require
Under section 5 the Collector shall after making such enquiry if any as he thinks fit issue a notification requiting the claimants to the treasure to appear before him on a day and at a place mentioned in the notification such day not being earlier than four days or later than six months after the date of the publication of such notification
Section 6 provides that any person having claimed any fight to such treasure or any part thereof as owner of the place in which it was found or otherwise and not appearing as required by the notification issued under section 5 shall forfeit such right
Sections 7 8 9 13 and 14 which are relevant for our purpose are extracted below section 7 On the day notified under section 5 the Collector shall cause the treasure to be produced before him and shall enquire as to and determine a the person by whom the place in which and the circumstances under which such treasure was found and b as far as is possible the person by whom and the circumstances under which such treasure was hidden
If upon an enquiry made under section 7 the Collector sees reason to believe that the treasure was hidden within one hundred years before the date of the finding by a person appearing as required by the said notification and claiming such treasure or by some other person under whom such person claims the Collector shall make an order adjourning the hearing of the case for such period as he deems sufficient to allow of a suit being instituted in the Civil Court by the claimant to establish his right
If upon such enquiry the Collector sees no reason to believe that the treasure was so hidden or If where a period is fixed under section 8 no suit is 161 instituted as aforesaid within such period to the knowledge of the Collector or if such suit is instituted within such period and the plaintiff s claim is finally rejected the Collector may declare the treasure to be ownerless
Any person aggrieved by a declaration made under this section may appeal against the same within two months from the date thereof to the Chief Controlling Revenueauthority
Subject to such appeal every such declaration shall be final and conclusive section 13
When a declaration has been made as aforesaid in respect of any treasure and two or more persons have appeared as aforesaid and each of them claimed as owner of the place where such treasure was found or the right of any person who has so appeared and claimed is disputed by the finder of such treasure the Collector shall retain such treasure and shall make an order staying his proceedings with a view to the matter being enquired into and determined by a Civil Court
section 14
Any person who has so appeared and claimed may within one month from the date of such order institute a suit in the Civil Court to obtain a decree declaring his right and in every such suit the finder of the treasure and all persons disputing such claim before the Collector shall be made defendants
 Under the scheme of the Act two kinds of suits can be filed at two stages namely one under section 8 and the other under section 14 of the Act
Section 8 provides that if the Collector has reason to believe that the treasure was hidden by any person appearing before the Collector within one hundred years or by some other person under whom such person claims the Collector shall adjourn the hearing for such period as he deems sufficient to allow the claimant to institute a suit to establish his right to the treasure
So under section 8 the suit has to be filed by the claimant within the period for which the hearing 162 of the case is adjourned for the establishment of his right to the treasure
On the other hand the question of filing a suit under section 14 will not arise unless the Collector makes a declaration under section 9 that the treasure is ownerless
Such a declaration under section 9 will be made by the Collector if he sees no reason to believe that the treasure was not hidden within one hundred years or if no suit is instituted under section 8 within the period for which the hearing adjourned by the Collector or if the plaintiffs claim is rejected
An appeal lies against a declaration by the Collector to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and subject to the appeal such declaration shall be final and conclusive
If however no such contingencies as mentioned in section 9 take place the Collector will have no juris diction to make a declaration that the treasure is owner less
If however any of such contingencies happens and the Collector makes a declaration under section 9 and two or more persons have appeared before the Collector each claim ing the ownership of the place where such treasure was found or the finder of the treasure disputes the fight of any person who has so appeared and claimed the Collector shall make an order under section 13 staying the proceedings with a view to the matter being enquired into by a Civil Court
It may be noticed here that the claim made under section 13 by the rival claimants relate to the ownership of the place and not to the ownership of the treasure for it has been already noticed that the declaration by the Collector under section 9 that the treasure is ownerless shall subject to the appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority be final and conclusive
The object of an enquiry as to the ownership of the place by the Civil Court is necessary is as much as section 10 of the Act provides inter alia that when a declaration has been made in respect of any treasure under section 9 such treasure shall either be delivered to the finder or be divided between him and the owner of the place in which it has been found
Thus it is manifestly clear that if no declaration is made under section 9 there is no question of filing a suit under section 14 of the Act
While a suit under section 8 relates to the establishment of the right of the claimant to the treasure a suit under section 14 relates to the estab lishment of the ownership of the place where the treasure was found for the purpose of division of the treasure be tween the finder and the owner of the place
Section 14 lays down that such a suit has to be filed within one 163 month from the date of such order to obtain a decree declar ing his right
It is manifestly clear from section 14 that the suit referred to therein is a suit to be filed by a person for the establishment of his right after the Collector had declared the treasure to be ownerless under section 9 after making a claim before the Collector under section 13
The words such order in section 14 in our view refer to the order passed by the Collector under section 13
Further the placement of section 14 after section 13 of the Act points only to the filing of the suit by a person after the Collec tor had made an order staying the proceedings under section 13
The suit contemplated by section 8 of the Act has to be filed by the claimant within the period for which the hear ing of the case is adjourned
Such period for which the hearing under section 8 is adjourned by the Collector may be more than a month
It is absurd to think that although section 8 provides that the suit has to be filed within the period for which the hearing is adjourned yet it has to be filed within one month under section 14
Section 8 and sections 13 and 14 contemplate two different situations
While under section 8 the suit has to be filed within the period during which the hearing stands adourned the suit under section 14 has to be filed within one month of the order of the Collector under section 13 of the Act
To hold that suits under section 8 and section 13 are both governed bythe limitation prescribed by section 14 will be to do violence to the provisions of the Act and the clear inten tion of the Legislature as indicated in the provisions
Another aspect in this regard may be considered
It may be argued that as the Collector had not allowed the appel lants and the respondents Nos 6 to 8 to file a counter claim or a suit the suit was not maintainable
In our opinion the question of filing a counter claim arises after a suit is filed by the claimant under section 8
It may be that there is no substantial difference between a counter claim and a suit but nonetheless a defendant cannot be prevented from filing a counter claim under the Code of Civil Procedure
In the instant case as the respondents Nos 2 to 5 have instituted the suit within the period during which the hearing before the Collector stands adjourned under section 8 the question of making a declaration by the Collector under section 9 of the Act does not arise and consequently there is no scope for filing any suit under section 14 of the Act for the establishment of the right to ownership of the place where the treasure was found by the respondents Nos 2 to 5
Thus 164 section 14 has no manner of application to a suit filed under section 8 of the Act
The next point that remains to be considered is whether Rule 6A1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the filing of a counter claim after the filing of a written statement
This point need not detain us long for Rule 6A1 does not on the face of it bar the filing of a counter claim by the defendant after he had filed the writ ten statement
What is laid down under Rule 6A1 is that a counter claim can be filed provided the cause of action had accrued to the defendant before the defendant had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired whether such counterclaim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not
The High Court in our opinion has misread and misunderstood the provision of Rule 6A1 in holding that as the appellants had filed the coun ter claim after the filing of the written statement the counter claim was not maintainable
The finding of the High Court does not get any support from Rule 6A1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
As the cause of action for the counter claim had arisen before the filing of the written statement the counter claim was therefore quite maintainable
Under Article 113 of the  the period of limitation of three years from the date the right to sue accrues has been provided for any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule
It is not disputed that a counter claim which is treated as a suit under section 32b of the has been filed by the appellants within three years from the date of accrual to them of the fight to sue
The learned District Judge and the High Court were wrong in dismissing the coun ter claim
For the reasons aforesaid the appeal is allowed
The order of the learned District Judge and the judgment of the High Court are set aside
The learned District Judge is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit and the counter claim in accordance with law
The appellants shall pay court fee on the counter claim if not already paid within such time as may be fixed by the learned District Judge
APJ Appeal allowed


Summary:
The predecessor in interest of the appellants namely Babulal purchased a house in the year 1947 from the sons of one Mannulal
The appellants and the respondents No 6 to 8 are the sons of the other three brothers of Mannulal
In the year 1976 the respondents Nos 2 to 5 started reconstructing or renovating their house and in the course of digging the plinth a treasure consisting of gold and silver ornaments and currency notes was found
They intimated the discovery of the treasure to the Collector who issued a notification under section 5 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act 1878
Respond ents Nos 2 to 5 the appellants and the respondents Nos
6 to 8 flied claims before the Collector
The Collector held that the respondents Nos 2 to 5 the finders of the treas ure are the owners of the house from where the treasure was found and permitted them under section 8 to institute a suit to establish their right before February 22 1979
The respondents Nos 2 to 5 instituted a suit for decla ration of their title to the treasure without making the other claimants before the Collector parties to the suit
On an application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants and respondents Nos
6 to 8 the District Judge made them defendants in the suit
Thereafter they filed their written statement denying the claim 01  the respondents Nos 2 to 5 to the treasure and claimed the title thereof to them
After the filing of the written statement the appel lants flied a counter claim claiming title to the treasure
The respondents Nos 2 to 5 156 filed an application praying that the counter claim should be dismissed contending that it was barred by limitation as prescribed in section 14 of the Act and that it was also not maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6A1 of the Code 01  Civil Procedure
The District Judge dismissed the counter claim holding that it was barred by section 14 of the Act
In the Revision the High Court upheld the order of the District Judge and further held that the counter claim having been filed after the filing of the written statement was not maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6A1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Allowing the Appeal to this Court HELD 1
The order of the District Judge and the Judg ment of the High Court are set aside
The District Judge is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit and the counter claim in accordance with law
164F G 2
Under the scheme of the Indian Treasure Trove Act 1878 two kinds of suits can be filed at two stages namely one under section 8 and the other under section 14
Section 8 provides that if the Collector has reason to believe that the treas ure was hidden by any person appearing before the Collector within one hundred years or by some other person under whom such person claims the Collector shall adjourn the hearing for such period as he deems sufficient to allow the claimant to institute a suit to establish his right to the treasure
161G H 162A 3
On the other hand the question of filing a suit under section 14 will not arise unless the Collector makes a declaration under section 9 that the treasure is ownerless
Such a declaration under section 9 will be made by the Collector if he sees no reason to believe that the treasure was not hidden within one hundred years or if no suit is instituted under section 8 within the period for which the hearing is adjourned by the Collector or if the plaintiff s claim is rejected
162B 4
If no such contingencies as mentioned in section 9 take place the Collector will have no jurisdiction to make a declaration that the treasure is ownerless
If however any of such contingencies happens and the Collector makes a declaration under section 9 and two or more persons have appeared before the Collector each claiming the ownership of the place where such treasure was found or the finder of the treasure disputes the right of any person who has so ap peared and claimed the Collector shall make an order under section 13 staying the proceedings with a view to the matter being enquired into by a Civil Court
157 5
The object of an enquiry as to the ownership of the place by the Civil Court is necessary inasmuch as section 10 of the Act provides that when a declaration has been made in respect of any treasure under section 9 such treasure shall either be delivered to the finder or be divided between him and the owner of the place in which it has been round
162F 6
A suit under section 14 relates to the establishment of the ownership of the place where the treasure was found for the purpose of division of the treasure between the finder and the owner of the place and that such a suit has to be filed within one month from the date of such order to obtain a decree declaring his right after the Collector had de clared the treasure to be ownerless under section 9 after making a claim before the Collector under section 13
The words such order in section 14 refer to the order passed by the Collector under section 13
163B 7
Section 8 and section 13 and section 14 contemplate two differ ent situations
While under section 8 the suit has to be filed within the period during which the hearing stands adjourned the suit under section 14 has to be filed within one month of the order of the Collector under section 13 of the Act
163C D 8
To hold that suits under section 8 and section 13 are both governed by the limitation prescribed by section 14 will be to do violence to the provisions of the Act and the clear intention of the Legislature as indicated in the provisions
163E 9
In the instant case as the respondents Nos 2 to 5 have instituted the suit within the period during which the hearing before the Collector stood adjourned under section 8 the question of making a declaration by the Collector under section 9 of the Act does not arise and consequently there is no scope for filing any suit under section 14 of the Act
Thus section 14 has no manner of application to a suit filed under section 8 of the Act
163G H 164A 10
Rule 6A1 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure does not bar the filing of a counter claim by the defendant after he had filed the written statement
What is laid down under Rule 6A1 is that a counter claim can be filed provided the cause of action had accrued to the defendant before the defendant had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired whether such counter claim is in the nature of the claim for damages or not
164B C 11
The High Court has misread and misunderstood the provision of Rule 6A1 in holding that as the appellants had filed the counter 158 claim after the filing of the written statement the coun ter claim was not maintainable
Under Article 113 of the  the period limitation of three years from the date the right to sue accrues has been provided for any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule
in the instant case the counter claim has been filed by the appellants within three years and as the cause of action for the counter claim had arisen before the filing of the written statement the counter claim was therefore quite maintainable
164C E