Back
Judges : KOSHI,KUMARA PILLAI,M.S.MENON
State - Appellant
Versus
Jathavedan Nambooripadu - Respondent
Case No : A. S. No. 34 of 1956 (T)
Decided On : 08/22/1958
Advocates Appeared :
C. M. Kuruvilla; For Appellant M. Madhavan Nair; Far Respondent
Limitation - Thiruppuvaram - Indian Limitation Act - Art.115, Art.120, Art.131, Art.132 - The judgment discusses the applicability of different articles of the Indian Limitation Act to a suit for arrears of Thiruppuvaram. The court held that the suit was solely for the recovery of arrears and not for the establishment of any right, thus Art.131 was not attracted. It further determined that Art.115 did not apply as the suit was not founded upon a contract, and concluded that the applicable article was Art.120. The court partially allowed the appeal and confined the decree to the arrears due in the six years immediately preceding the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was for arrears of Thiruppuvaram at 12.5 paras of paddy from 1-5-1117 till 3-7-1129. The only question that arose for consideration was the applicability of the Indian Limitation Act to the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was solely for the recovery of arrears and not for the establishment of any right. It held that Art.131 was not attracted and determined that Art.115 did not apply, concluding that the applicable article was Art.120. The court partially allowed the appeal and confined the decree to the arrears due in the six years immediately preceding the suit.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Indian Limitation Act to the claim for arrears of Thiruppuvaram.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was solely for the recovery of arrears and not for the establishment of any right, thus Art.131 was not attracted. It further determined that Art.115 did not apply as the suit was not founded upon a contract, and concluded that the applicable article was Art.120.
Final Decision: The appeal was partially allowed and the decree was confined to the arrears due in the six years immediately preceding the suit.
1. The defendant (State of Travancore-Cochin) in O.S. No. 31 of 1954 of the District Court of Trivandrum is the appellant before us. The Madhom of the plaintiffs is entitled to an annual Thiruppuvaram of 28 4 paras of paddy in respect of the property specified in Para.2 of the plaint. By Ext. A dated 19-7-1915, a judgment of the High Court of Travancore, the liability of the State in respect of the Thiruppuvaram was fixed at 12.5 paras of paddy per year and the claim in the suit is for arrears of Thiruppuvaram at 12.5 paras of paddy from 1-5-1117 till the date of suit, that is, till 3-7-1129 (15-2-1954). According to the State the claim is governed by Art.115 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (3 years) and according to the respondents the article applicable should be Art.131 of the said Act (12 years). The respondents have also an alternative contention to the effect that if Art.131 is held to be inapplicable, the article applicable is still not Art.115, but Art.120 (.6 years). This question of limitation is the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal.
2. The learned District Judge held that the article applicable was Art.132 of the Indian Limitation Act (12 years). He based his conclusion on some decisions of the High Court of Travancore on the corresponding article Art.119 - of the Travancore Limitation Act, 1100.
3. The suit was instituted after the Indian Limitation Act was extended to the State on 1-4-1951 by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (Act III of 1951). S.30 of the Indian Limitation Act introduced by Act III of 1951 provides:
"Notwithstanding anything herein contained, any suit for which the period of limitation prescribed by this Act is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by any law corresponding to this Act in force in a Part B State which is repealed by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, may be instituted within the period of two years next after the coming into force of this Act in that Part B State or within the period prescribed for such suit by such corresponding law, whichever period expires first".
As the period of two years provided by this section was also over by the time the suit was instituted we consider it unnecessary to decide the scope and ambit of Art.119 of the Travancore Limitation Act, 1100.
4. No relief against property is claimed by the plaintiffs as can be seen from Para.2 of the replication dated 20-11-1954:
"Counsel for the appellant relied upon the language of the 132nd article of the second schedule, 'For money charged upon immoveable property, 12 years'. His contention was that that period of 12 years applied to every remedy which the instrument carried with it, and gave 12 years for the personal remedy against the mortgagor as well as against the mortgaged property. Looking at the previous language with reference to personal suits, and at the language of Art.132, their Lordships think great inconvenience and inconsistencies would arise if they did not read the latter as having reference only to suits for money charged on immoveable property to raise it out of that property. That seems to their Lordships what the Legislature intended, and they are therefore of opinion that the decision of the High Court was right".
5. In the light of I. L. R.7 All 502 counsel for the respondents did not seek to support the conclusion of the trial court that the article applicable is Art.132 of the Indian Limitation Act.
6. Art.131 of the Indian Limitation Act prescribes a period of 12 years for a suit to establish a periodically recurring right from the date of the first refusal of the enjoyment of that right. The wording of the article makes it quite clear that its applicability depends on the satisfaction of two conditions:
(a) there must be a suit to establish a right; and
(b) the right sought to be established must be a periodically recurring right.
7. The suit before us is solely for the recovery of arrears of Thiruppuvaram and not for the establishment of any
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
