Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2687

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
S.P.R.Velumurugan - Appellant
Versus
S.P.R.Rajmohan - Respondent
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.95 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.585 of 2025
Decided on : 02-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi
For the Respondents:M/s. N.Juliet Latha

Parties cannot waive the defense of limitation; a suit filed beyond the statutory limit must be dismissed, regardless of any concession from opposing parties.

Headnote:(A) LIMITATION ACT - Section 14 - Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - Suit for declaration of a sale deed as null and void filed beyond limitation period - Suit struck off - Court found that the plaintiff was aware of the sale deed before lodging a police complaint and failed to file suit within three years as required. (Paras 7, 13, 15, 21)

(B) Concept of Limitation - Parties cannot waive the defence of limitation, and even if unasserted, the court must dismiss the suit on this ground. (Paras 17, 21)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit to declare a sale deed executed by his power agent as null and void, citing limitation issues. The complaint was lodged on 16.03.2020, yet the suit was filed on 18.09.2024, exceeding the three-year statutory limit.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the suit had been filed beyond the allowed timeframe and was thus barred by limitation.

Issues: The critical issue was whether the suit could be maintained given the limitation period had expired.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the sale deed.

Result: The plaint struck off and the civil revision petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments related to limitation and adherence to legal procedures (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 16)
3. court's analysis on limitation and legal standards (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 20 , 21)
4. ratio decidendi on rejection of plaint due to limitation (Para 19)
5. conclusion and order of the court (Para 22)

ORDER :

The defendants 4 and 11 in O.S.No.127 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Court, Paramakudi, Ramnad District have filed the above civil revision petition seeking to strike off the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

2. A perusal of the records reveal that the first respondent in the revision petition has filed the above said suit for the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed dated 29.06.2018 registered in Document No. 860 of 2018 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 4^th defendant is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and the 11^th defendant. The plaintiff has further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of others.

3. The plaint averments reveal that the plaintiff and the 11^th defendant are the brothers and they jointly owned the suit schedule properties. They have jointly executed a power deed in favour of the 1^st defendant on 15.03.2018. Relying upon the power deed, the 1^st defendant has executed a mortgage deed in favour of his wife on 16.03.2015. Thereafter, the 1^st defendant has sold the property in favour of the 4^th defendant on 29.06.2018.

4. The averments further reveal that the plaintiff has lodged a police complaint on 16.03.2020 alleging that misusing the power deed, the power agent has collusively executed a mortgage deed in the name of his wife and later, sold it to the 4^th defendant. An F.I.R was registered in Crime No.23 of 2020 as against the 1^st defendant, his wife, his son and others. The 1^st defendant and his family members had filed Crl.O.P.No.8346 of 2020 to quash the said F.I.R. The 1^st defendant has filed an affidavit in Crl.O.P.No.8346 of 2020 to the effect that he will not oppose any civil suit to be filed by the defacto complainant (plaintiff herein) challenging the sale deed dated 29.06.2018 on the ground of limitation.

5. Based upon the said undertaking letter, the F.I.R was quashed by this Court on 05.12.2023. The plaintiff had filed the above said suit on 18.09.2024 seeking to declare the sale deed dated 29.06.2018 to be null and void and not binding upon him and his brother 11^th defendant. The 11^th defendant is not sailing with the plaintiff.

6. The 4^th defendant is the purchaser and the beneficiary of the sale deed dated 29.06.2018, along with 11^th defendant who is the co-sharer of the property, have filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

7. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the sale deed was executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 4^th defendant on 29.06.2018 based upon the power deed executed by the plaintiff and the 11^th defendant in favour of the 1^st defendant. The plaintiff was aware of the said sale deed while he lodged a police complaint on 16.03.2020. Therefore, the civil suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years namely on or before 16.03.2023. However, the present suit has been filed on 18.09.2024 and therefore, it is clearly barred by limitation.

8. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff had contended that they have erroneously approached the police authority for registering an F.I.R and therefore, they are entitled to the benefits under Section 14 of the LIMITATION ACT . The period spent before the criminal Court should also be excluded. It is further contended that the power agent (1^st defendant) has already filed an affidavit before this Court that he would not o