Summary
An alternative plot given in lieu of acquired land was allotted in 1991 to one son of the deceased landowner, on the strength of a registered relinquishment deed executed by the other heirs. Another son objected that the deed was obtained by fraud but never challenged it in court. In 2000, his heirs sued for a declaration that they were co-owners of the plot. The trial court decided limitation as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit as time-barred, and the first appellate court and the High Court agreed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Limitation is a mixed question but may be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC where the facts fixing its start are admitted in the plaint. The plaint showed knowledge by 1991, and representations to the authorities do not extend time. Article 136 of the Limitation Act applies only to execution.
Issues
- Whether limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC.
- Whether the 12-year period in Article 136 of the Limitation Act applied to a suit for a declaration of co-ownership.
- Whether the suit, filed in 2000, was barred where the plaint showed knowledge of the relinquishment deed and objection to it by 1991.
Provisions considered
- Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Where the facts that fix the start of limitation are specifically pleaded and so admitted in the plaint, limitation becomes a pure question of law. It may be framed and decided as a preliminary issue, and the suit disposed of on it. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 26)
- Article 136, Limitation Act, 1963Applies only to applications to execute decrees or orders. It cannot give a 12-year period for instituting a declaratory suit. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963The suit was in substance declaratory, and the consequential relief depended on the declaration. The three-year period ran from 1991, when the predecessor knew of and objected to the deed, and representations to authorities did not extend it. (¶¶ 19, 22, 23, 25, 26)
- Sections 17, 18 and 58, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Statements in a party's own pleadings are admissions, and admitted facts need not be proved. That allows limitation to be decided on the plaint's own averments. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Held
- Concurrent findings are interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution only if they are perverse. That another view is possible is not enough. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Following Nusli Neville Wadia, limitation may be decided as a preliminary issue when it turns on admitted facts. Where the plaint specifically pleads the dates that fix its start, the issue is confined to law and may be tried first, with the suit decided accordingly. (¶¶ 15, 18)
- Article 136 of the Limitation Act concerns execution of decrees and does not give a 12-year period for filing a declaratory suit. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The plaint showed that the predecessor knew of the deed and objected to it by April 1991 but never sought to set it aside in court. His death did not stop time running, and repeated representations did not extend it. The 2000 suit was barred, and the finding was neither perverse nor illegal. (¶¶ 22, 23, 25, 27)
Result
Appeal dismissed with costs. The concurrent findings that the suit was barred by limitation were upheld.