Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Sukhbiri Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10834 of 2010
Decided On : 29-09-2022
(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – Scope – Interference with concurrent findings in appeal under Article 136 of Constitution is to be made sparingly, that too when judgment impugned is absolutely perverse – On appreciation of evidence another view is possible also cannot be a reason for substitution of a plausible view taken and confirmed. (Para 4)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIV, Rule 2(2) – Preliminary issue – Issue of limitation – In a case, question of limitation can be decided based on admitted facts, it can be decided as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2(2)(b) – Once facts are disputed about limitation, determination of question of limitation also cannot be made under Order 14 Rule 2(2) as a preliminary issue or any other such issue of law which requires examination of disputed facts – Though, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it will shed the said character and would get confined to one of question of law when foundational fact(s), determining starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in plaint averments. (Paras 15 and 18)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 17, 18 and 58 – Admission – Admission made by a party in his pleadings is admissible against him proprio vigore – Statements by a party to proceedings are admissions and facts admitted need not be proved. (Paras 16 and 17)
(D) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 136 – Applicability – It applies only when an application for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to be filed – In instant case, such a stage for application of Article 136 of Limitation Act had not reached and question involved is relatable only to time restriction for initiating legal proceedings to seek alleged legal right – In said circumstances, inevitable conclusion can only be that Article 136 got no application in case on hand and as such Appellants could not claim for a larger period of limitation of 12 years. (Paras 20 and 21)
(E) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 66 – Suit for declaratory reliefs – Consideration of validity of a relinquishment deed and consideration of period of limitation with reference to same are different and distinct – Question of limitation is to be considered not with reference to validity of Relinquishment Deed. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
Points in issue are :
(a) Whether the issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV,
Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
(b) Whether a larger period of limitation of 12 years would be available to the plaintiffs to bring in a suit by virtue of application of Article 136 of Limitation Act, 1963?
(c) Whether Article 17 or Article 65 of the Act got any application, in case Article 136 of the Act is found inapplicable?
Findings of Court:
There is absolutely no perversity or illegality in concurrent findings of the courts below warranting interference in invocation of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Result : Appeal dismissed with costs.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code when it can be decided on admitted facts. However, if the facts regarding limitation are disputed, the question cannot be resolved as a preliminary issue and requires examination of contested facts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Statements made by a party in pleadings are considered admissions and are admissible against that party without the need for further proof. Such admissions can be used to determine the starting point of limitation (!) (!) (!) .
The applicability of specific limitation provisions depends on the nature of the claim. For instance, certain articles apply only when applications for execution of decrees or orders are involved, and not at the stage of initiating legal proceedings to assert a right (!) (!) .
The consideration of the validity of a relinquishment deed and the period of limitation with respect to that deed are distinct issues. The validity of such a deed is a separate matter from the question of limitation, which is primarily about the time within which a suit can be filed (!) .
The determination of limitation as a preliminary issue is permissible when the facts are admitted and the legal question is straightforward. When facts are disputed, the issue must be resolved after examining the contested evidence (!) (!) .
The court's findings on limitation, based on the facts in the pleadings, are binding unless shown to be perverse or illegal. The courts below correctly applied these principles, and their concurrent decisions do not warrant interference (!) (!) .
The stage for applying certain limitation articles, such as Article 136, is specific to particular proceedings like applications for execution of decrees, and does not generally extend to the initial filing of suits or claims for declaration of rights (!) (!) .
The nature of the suit—whether declaratory or otherwise—affects the applicable limitation period. In this case, the suit was of a declaratory nature, and the limitation period was correctly identified and applied by the courts below (!) (!) .
The courts rightly rejected arguments that the suit was barred by limitation based on the dates of knowledge and the conduct of the parties, emphasizing that the limitation period begins when the right is known or the infringement occurs, and not merely upon suspicion or later discovery (!) .
Overall, there was no perversity or illegality in the judgments of the courts below, and their decisions are well-founded within the legal framework. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment and order in RSA No. 79/2007 dated 25.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi. The appellants were plaintiffs in Suit No. 410 of 2000 on the file of the Court presided over by Shri Vidya Prakash, Civil Judge, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) filed seeking reliefs mainly against the 5th Respondent. The Trial Court framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation, evidently, upon forming the opinion that case may be disposed of on an issue of law and that it warrants postponement of settlement of other issues until after that issue has been determined and to deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. Accordingly, the Trial Court framed a preliminary question as to “whether the Suit is within the limitation.” Upon answering the same in the negative, in accordance with the said decision, the suit was dismissed as per judgment dated 13.05.2005. The defendants challenged the said judgment and decree before the Court presided over by Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No. 99/2005 and it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, as per judgment dated 08.12.2006. Thereupon, they took up the matter in second appeal before the High Court. As per the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2009 the High Court concurred with the findings and dismissed the appeal answering the question of law against the appellants. Leave was granted in Special Leave Petition No. 34648 of 2009 filed against the stated judgment of the High Court and in this civil appeal, the respondents were granted liberty to file counter affidavits.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.
3. At the outset, it is to be noted that the challenge in this appeal is against concurrent findings by three Courts, as mentioned hereinbefore. The scope of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent findings is well settled. In State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Dayal, (2019) 8 SCC 637 reiterating the settled position, this Court held that a concurrent finding of fact is binding, unless it is infected with perversity. It was held therein:
“When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. [See observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose, J. as His Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar and Others vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar and Others, AIR 1943 Nagpur 117 Para 43].”
4. Thus, evidently, the settled position is that interference with the concurrent findings in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is to be made sparingly, that too when the judgment impugned is absolutely perverse. On appreciation of evidence another view is possible also cannot be a reason for substitution of a plausible view taken and confirmed. We will now, bearing in mind the settled position, proceed to consider as to whether the said appellate power invites invocation in the case on hand.
5. For making a consideration as mentioned above, it is only apposite to make a brief reference to the facts involved in the case revealed from the averments in the plaint. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, viz. Shri Rama Nand, was the bhumidar of certain extent of agricultural land situated in Village Naraina in Delhi. The said plot of agricultural land was acquired and Award No. 19/75-76 was passed in relat
(1) Issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts.(2) Admission – Statements by a part....
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
It is settled law that while considering application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., defence is immaterial and Court has to only look into averments of plaint and application cannot be dec....
An application for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely based on the averments in the plaint. The court cannot consider the defendant's evidence or written statement....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act would not be available if the earlier suit was dismissed after adjudication on its merits a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
