2006 (12) TMI 485 - SC - Indian Laws

What would be the period of limitation for raising a counter claim in respect of wrongful detention of goods?

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the period of limitation for raising a counter claim in a case of wrongful detention of goods.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute between siblings over a residential property. The respondent filed a counter claim for damages due to the alleged wrongful detention of her belongings, including a National Saving Certificate and personal effects, by the appellant. The counter claim was treated as a suit and was decreed, leading to the issue of whether the counter claim was barred by limitation being raised on appeal.

The Division Bench of the High Court applied Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to rule that the counter claim was not time-barred. One of the judges opined that a completed tort is not a continuing wrong, emphasizing that a continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury for which the wrongdoer remains liable. The judgment cited a previous Division Bench decision to support the view that certain types of wrongs, such as obstruction of passage on land, can be considered continuing wrongs.

However, the Supreme Court differentiated between a suit for damages and a continuing wrong related to property enjoyment. It highlighted that unless a wrong is continuous, the period of limitation does not pause. Articles 68, 69, and 91 of the Limitation Act were discussed, which govern suits concerning movable property and specify the starting point of limitation based on the nature of the claim. In this case, the possession of the goods was allegedly wrongfully detained in 1987, and the counter claim was filed in 1992, exceeding the statutory limitation period.

The Court concluded that the respondent had knowledge of the alleged wrongful act in 1987 and should have filed a suit within three years from that date. The Court rejected the argument that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inventory preparation in a related legal proceeding could create a fresh cause of action for damages. Ultimately, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs in this case.

In summary, the Supreme Court clarified the application of the limitation period in cases of wrongful detention of goods, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action and distinguishing between continuing wrongs and suits for damages.