9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Dispute over a registered Will dated 5th August, 1972, alleged fraud in procuring the Will, possession of disputed property, undervaluation of suit, right of testator to execute the Will, ownership of disputed property, and relief entitled to the plaintiff. Details of the judgment: 1. The suit involved a dispute regarding a registered Will dated 5th August, 1972, executed by Brijlal in favor of the appellants, which was contested by the respondent alleging fraud in its procurement. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding it barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, due to failure to prove lack of knowledge of the Will within three years. 2. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Court's decision, and the Civil Judge, Aligarh, reversed the judgment without addressing the limitation issue. The defendants then filed a second appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which affirmed the decision without considering the limitation aspect. 3. The main contention in the appeal before the Supreme Court was that the lower courts erred in not addressing the limitation issue, which was crucial as the Trial Court had found the suit barred by limitation. The respondent argued that the limitation plea was not raised in the appellate courts and could not be considered at this stage. 4. The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court's finding on limitation, though not specifically framed as an issue, was crucial as per Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, which mandates dismissal of suits filed after the prescribed period. The failure of the appellate courts to address this issue rendered their decisions ineffective, as the suit remained barred by limitation. 5. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that questions of limitation go to the root of a court's jurisdiction and cannot be overlooked. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the suit to the First Appellate Court to determine whether the suit was indeed barred by limitation. If found time-barred, the appeal would be dismissed; otherwise, the decision on other issues would stand. 6. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of addressing the issue of limitation in legal proceedings to ensure the validity of the court's jurisdiction and decisions.
|
