SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5207

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO, MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH, JJ
MR MASOOD AHMED SHARIFF – Appellant
Versus
SMT SUMATHI – Respondent
COMAP 161 of 2024



Petitioner Advocates:SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N ,Respondent Advocate: SITARAMAA G HEGDE

Claims for maintenance within three years preceding the filing of the suit are maintainable, while claims for security deposits may be barred by limitation.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Dismissal of suit for recovery of amount - Suit dismissed by Trial Court on grounds of limitation - Appellants claimed Rs.17,47,357/- including maintenance arrears and security deposit - Court found part of claim for maintenance within limitation period - Suit restored for consideration of maintenance claim. (Paras 6, 10)

(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that claims for maintenance within three years preceding the filing of the suit are maintainable, while claims for security deposits may be barred by limitation. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, engaged in construction, filed a suit for recovery against the respondent for unpaid maintenance and a refundable security deposit, which the Trial Court dismissed as barred by limitation. The appellants argued that part of their claim was within the limitation period.

Findings of Court:
The court agreed that the claim for maintenance was within the limitation period and restored the suit for that claim, while affirming the dismissal of the security deposit claim.

Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was barred by limitation concerning the claims made by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claim for maintenance was maintainable as it fell within the three-year limitation period, while the claim for the security deposit was not.

Result: Appeal allowed in part, suit restored for maintenance claim.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the Judgment/Decree dated 29.02.2024 in Com.O.S.No.496/2023, whereby the learned LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.88) (‘Trial Court’ in short) has dismissed the suit filed by them.

2. The suit was filed by the appellants for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,47,357/- with future interest @18% p.a., from the date of the suit till realization, with costs and other reliefs.

3. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that, the appellants, who are in the business of construction had obtained sanction from the concerned Local Authority to put-up construction. The partnership firm which was earlier existing was dissolved as per the Dissolution of Partnership Deed dated 30.03.2017. As per the Deed of Dissolution, the respondent herein was entitled to 8.64% in the assets of the said partnership firm and accordingly she was allotted two bedrooms apartment bearing No. SF-204 instead of SF-206 at the request of the respondent on the 2nd Floor having super built-up area of 948 sq.ft. together with 227 Sq.ft. of undivided share, right, title, interest and ownership and one bed room with a study room apartment bearing No.TF-306 on the 3rd Floor having super build-up area of 787 Sq.Ft. together with 189 Sq.Ft. of undivided share, right, title, interest and ownership in the land comprised therein of the multistoried residential apartment building, known as ‘Goodwill Apartments’.

4. It was the case of the appellants that, the defendants had undertaken to bear and proportionately pay/share of common expenses being maintenance of common facilities and amenities including Solar Panel Maintenance, Maintenance of Lift and Generator charges, Water Consumption charges, Security Salaries, all Annual Maintenance Contracts etc.. But, to the surprise of the appellants/plaintiffs, the defendant had not so far paid a penny towards the maintenance and such other charges right from handing over the Flats to the respondent. The respondent is liable to pay arrears of maintenance @Rs.5,500/- p.m. along with interest @18% p.a.. The other Flat Owners have started paying maintenance charges in respect of the Flats fallen to their share. The respondent is recognized as the Khathedar of the two Flats by the concerned authorities and further, she has been paying only electrical consumption charges in respect of the two Flats. The said documents clearly clinch the factum of possession of the defendant being 8.64% as agreed by the respondent in terms of the affidavit executed by her in the year 2017. The total amount of the claim was made in the suit was for Rs.17,47,357/- as per the break-up given below:-

i) Rs.5,00,000/- being the refundable Security Deposit along with interest @ 18% p.a., from 28.07.2023 to 28.03.2023 is Rs.10,02,500/-;

ii) Rs.3,71,500/- being the arrears of maintenance amount payable to the appellants along with interest @18% p.a., from 28.07.2017 to 28.03.2023 is Rs.7,47,357/-.

5. In so far as the cause of action is concerned, it is specifically stated by the appellants that the same arises on 11.06.2013, as the date on which the Joint Development Agreement was entered into between plaintiffs, defendant and others; on 11.06.2023, the date on which a Supplementary Agreement was entered; the date-28.07.2017 on which a Declaratory Affidavit was executed by the respondent; the date-28.07.2017 on which possession of two Flats were handed-over to the respondent; the date-29.01.2022 on which the legal notice was issued to the respondent and on 04.02.2023 the date on which reply was issued by the respondent. The respondent has filed a detailed written statement.

6. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit by answering the issue of limitation in the following manner:-

“46. The plaintiff ought to have filed the sit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- within three years from 28.07.2017 i.e., on or before 28.07.2020

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top