2014 (7) TMI 1332 - SC - Indian Laws

Time Limitation - suit for declaration that the three settlement deeds, all dated 27.3.1978 and registered as Document Nos. 248, 249 and 443 of 1978 with the Sub Registrar's Office, Royapuram, is barred by limitation of time - whether an issue of limitation could at all have been taken up as a preliminary issue? HELD THAT - In Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi and Ors. 2011 (7) TMI 1305 - SUPREME COURT , while dealing with Order 14, Rule 2, observed that Sub-rule (2) of Order 14 refers to the discretion given to the court where the court may try an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court or the bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force as a preliminary issue - In Ramesh D. Desai and Ors. v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Ors. 2006 (7) TMI 325 - SUPREME COURT , while dealing with the issue of limitation, the Court opined that a plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact. The Court further proceeded to state that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. On a plain consideration of the language employed in Sub-rule (2) of Order 14 it can be stated with certitude that when an issue requires an inquiry into facts it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In the case at hand, we find that unless there is determination of the fact which would not protect the Plaintiff Under Section 10 of the Limitation Act the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is not a case which will come within the ambit and sweep of Order 14, Rule 2 which would enable the court to frame a preliminary issue to adjudicate thereof. The learned single Judge, as it appears, has remained totally oblivious of the said facet and adjudicated the issue as if it falls under Order 14, Rule 2. We repeat that on the scheme of Section 10 of the Limitation Act we find certain facts are to be established to throw the lis from the sphere of the said provision so that it would come within the concept of limitation. The issue of consideration has not yet emerged. This settlement made by the father was whether for consideration or not has to be gone into and similarly whether the property belongs to the trust as trust is understood within the meaning of Section 10 of the Limitation Act has also to be gone into. Ergo, there can be no shadow of doubt that the issue No. 1 that was framed by the learned single Judge was an issue that pertained to fact and law and hence, could not have been adjudicated as a preliminary issue. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Legal sustainability of judgment and order passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 229 of 2006 affirming judgment dated 24.07.2003 passed by learned single Judge in S.C. No. 673 of 1997, focusing on limitation issue in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of land to trust.

Analysis:

1. Background and Factual Expose:
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of three settlement deeds executed 19 years earlier as null and void and recovery of possession of the land to the trust. The Defendant raised the ground of limitation, leading the learned single Judge to take up the issue as a preliminary matter.

2. Limitation Issue:
The Defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 56 to 59 of the Limitation Act. The learned single Judge ruled in favor of the Defendant, stating that the suit for recovery of possession was also time-barred under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, due to adverse possession by the Defendants.

3. Division Bench Decision:
The Division Bench analyzed Articles 92 and 96, emphasizing that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the settlement deeds in 1978, thus the suit should have been filed within twelve years from that date. The Plaintiff's delay in filing the suit was deemed fatal due to the limitation period.

4. Legal Arguments:
The Appellant's counsel argued that the issue of limitation could not have been taken up as a preliminary issue, citing Section 10 of the Limitation Act and Articles 92 and 96. The Respondent's counsel contended that the Plaintiff did not qualify as a trust under Section 10, making Article 59 applicable for limitation purposes.

5. Judicial Precedents:
Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be decided in isolation from the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that issues of law and fact should be tried together, especially when the decision on legal issues depends on factual determinations.

6. Final Decision:
The Court concluded that the issue of limitation was wrongly treated as a preliminary issue. The suit required a determination of facts to assess if it fell under Section 10 of the Limitation Act. The Division Bench's reliance on Articles 92 to 96 without considering crucial factual aspects was deemed erroneous. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgments without costs, and directing the expeditious disposal of the suit pending since 1997 by the High Court of Madras.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the intricate legal reasoning applied by the Court in addressing the limitation issue and the procedural aspects involved in the case.