Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
VANDANA KASREKAR, J.
Parties Name Kishorilal Dubey - Petitioners
Versus
Premchand Shrivastava (deceased) through L.Rs. Smt. Shail Shrivastava & Others - Respondents
Case No. C.R. No. 29 of 2009
Decided On : 18-09-2018
Limitation Act - Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction - 14 - [Eviction Suit] - [Section 14 of the Limitation Act] - The court discussed the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and held that the benefit of Section 14(1) would not be available to the plaintiff as the earlier suit was dismissed after adjudication on its merits and not because the Court was unable to entertain it. The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff in the written statement. The court referred to various judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement of the suit premises for his son. The suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to file a fresh suit for possession based on his title. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the period spent in prosecuting the earlier suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act would not be available to the plaintiff as the earlier suit was dismissed after adjudication on its merits and not because the Court was unable to entertain it. The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff in the written statement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act would not be available to the plaintiff as the earlier suit was dismissed after adjudication on its merits and not because the Court was unable to entertain it. The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff in the written statement.
Final Decision: The civil revision was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the trial Court was set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was also dismissed.
1. The applicant has filed this revision challenging the order dated 20.12.2008 passed by 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2008.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on or about 09.01.1991 the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 has filed a suit against defendant No. 1/applicant for his eviction from the disputed premises as well as arrears of rent of Rs. 17,100/- on the allegation that he is the owner of the suit premises having purchased the same in an auction held by the Additional Tehsildar-cum-Sale Tax Officer, Katni on 28.03.1979 and the auction sale was confirmed on 04.06.1979 and sale certificate has been issued in his favour on 16.03.1982. He further alleged that defendant No. 1 took the suit premises from him on rent at Rs. 300/- per month and defendant No. 1 is in arrears of rent since 01.04.1983 and despite the notice dated 13.09.1990 he has not paid the arrears and that the suit premises are bonafide required by the plaintiff for residence of his son Shishir Shrivastava. Defendant No. 1 has contested the plaintiff's claim by filing his written statement on 20.09.1991 alleging that he is the owner of the suit premises which is his ancestral property and the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and he also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff. He also denied that he has paid any rent to the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit premises and also that their existence in relationship of landlord and tenant between him and defendant No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred a F.A. No. 29/1996 before this Court. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2003 affirming the finding of the trial Court. While dismissing this appeal, this Court has observed that the plaintiff, if so advised, may file a suit for possession of the house in dispute based on his title, if it is permissible under the law. Thereafter on 26.12.2003, the plaintiff has filed a suit before the trial Court for directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the peaceful possession of the disputed house to him and also for damages.
3. In para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that the cause of action for filing the present suit for possession passed on title accrued to him on 10.11.2003 when the first appeal was dismissed and observation to file a suit on the basis of title was made. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint and impleaded defendant No. 2 also as a party to the suit claiming relief of possession from him also. Defendant No. 1 has filed written statement denying the plaint allegations that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit house and defendant No. 1 is the owner thereof. The auction proceedings conducted by the Sales Tax Department are illegal, null and void and sale certificate in plaintiff's favour did not confer any title upon him. The plaintiff never obtained the possession of the suit house and defendant No. 1 has always continued to be the owner thereof. He further alleged that the suit is barred by time. As per the plaint averments, cause of action for filing the present suit accrued to the plaintiff on 04.06.1979. Upon filing of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the trial Court and issue No. 4 is whether the suit has been instituted within the period of limitation.
4. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings the plaintiff filed an application on 28.02.2007 under Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for excluding the period of 12 years, 10 months and 2 days being the period during which his earlier suit remained pending for the purposes of calculation of th
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....
In property disputes, once a plaintiff proves title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession; failure to do so results in the plaintiff's claim being upheld.
Period of limitation – Object to advance cause of justice must be kept in mind while considering bar of limitation.
The suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, allowing 12 years from the date of adverse possession, not Article 58.
(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....
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
