Supreme Court: Limitation Is A Matter Of Statute & Must Be Strictly Enforced More So When Earlier Transaction Is Well Within Parties’ Knowledge
The Supreme Court remarked that the Civil Procedure Code and the law of limitation, meant to assist the Courts in the process of rendering justice, cannot curtail the power of the Courts to render justice.
The Supreme Court reiterated that limitation is a matter of statute and must be strictly enforced, more so when the earlier transaction or sale is well within the knowledge of the parties.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court which remitted the case to the Trial Court for framing additional issues in respect of limitation.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “It is reiterated at this juncture that limitation is a matter of statute and must be strictly enforced, more so when the earlier transaction or sale is well within the knowledge of the parties. This principle assumes greater significance in the present case, where the delay extends to seventeen years for filing the suit, despite the fact that they were arrayed as respondents/Judgment Debtors in the execution proceedings. Furthermore, protection of bona fide purchasers for value is a significant consideration, and any disturbance to their rights or titles after such a long period, would create uncertainty in property transactions and undermine the sanctity of court sale.”
The Bench remarked that the Civil Procedure Code and the law of limitation, being procedural laws, meant to assist the Courts in the process of rendering justice, cannot curtail the power of the Courts to render justice.
AOR Meha Ashok Aggarwal represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate S. Nandakumar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The genesis of the litigation traced back to a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) consisting of a man and his two sons. Originally, a Suit was filed by the wife and daughter of one of the sons, seeking maintenance against him, his father and brother. The Suit was decreed in 1965 and the Suit properties were attached for the maintenance amount in the execution proceedings initiated by the Plaintiffs. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the father and his brother died and their legal heirs were brought on record. Through Court auction, the property was purchased by a person and the sale was confirmed by issuing a certificate. Since the son tried to encroach the property, the property owner filed a Suit for permanent injunction and the same was decreed in 1973.
Subsequently, the property was purchased by the Respondents from the said owner and they also filed a Suit seeking permanent injunction which was also decreed. Thereafter, the property was purchased by another Respondent and later on, by the Appellants. The daughters of the deceased father’s brother instituted a Suit before the Additional District Munsif to set aside the Decree passed by the Court of District Munsif and to partition the Suit properties in 12 equal parts and for permanent injunction restraining the subsequent purchasers. However, the said Suit was dismissed against which the said daughters filed an Appeal Suit before the Additional District Judge, which was also dismissed. Challenging this, the daughters went on further Appeal which was allowed by the High Court. Being aggrieved, the Appellants being the subsequent purchasers, filed an Appeal before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “Limitation, as we generally know is a mixed question of fact and law. However, there is no hard and fast rule that every question of limitation is to be treated as a mixed question of fact and law. In cases, where the action is initiated after several years after the right to sue accrued, without any pleadings to explain the reasons for delay or as to when the fraud was discovered, the question of limitation is to be treated as a question of law.”
The Court further noted that even in the absence of specific pleadings regarding the limitation in the plaint or a plea of defense, there is a bounden duty on every civil Court to ascertain as to whether the lis has been initiated within the time prescribed under law, even if the parties to the lis had not raised any objections.
“In cases, where the pleadings are silent, then it becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain from the evidence and the overall facts of the case, as pleaded by either party, and to render a finding on limitation where the question of limitation is to be treated as a question of law, since the Court cannot entertain frivolous or stale claims. It is also apropos to reiterate the settled position of law that a question of law can be raised at any stage”, it enunciated.
The Court was of the view that in such cases, when the larger issue that has been framed is wide enough to cover different points of disputes within it, there is no necessity to frame a specific issue on that aspect.
“Further, when the parties go to trial with the knowledge that a particular point is at lis, had full opportunity to let in evidence, they cannot later turn back to say that a specific issue was not framed. All that is required under law, is for the Court to render a finding on the particular fact or law in dispute, on the facts of the case. However, we make it clear that such evidence, in the absence of pleadings, cannot permit either of the parties to make out a new case”, it also observed.
The Court elucidated that the Courts are vested with powers to go into the question of law, touching upon either the limitation or the jurisdiction, even if no plea is raised and not in cases, where facts have to be pleaded and evidence has to be let in.
“Procedural laws after all are handmaid of justice. What is to be seen is whether any irregularity arising from a failure to follow procedure has caused serious prejudice to the parties. It is not to be forgotten that the process of adjudication is to discern the truth”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court emphasised that the question of limitation can be encompassed within the larger question determined by the First Appellate Court for determination and the failure of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to formulate a separate issue, is not fatal to the Judgment rendered by them and has not caused any prejudice to the parties.
“Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial solely with respect to the issue of limitation; and that, the Courts below have rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Judgment, and restored the Trial Court’s Decree.
Cause Title- R. Nagaraj (Dead) through LRs. and Another v. Rajmani and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 478)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Meha Ashok Aggarwal, Advocates M. Yogesh Kanna, Vasu Kalra, and M.K. Elangovan.
Respondents: Senior Advocate S. Nandakumar, AOR Naresh Kumar, Advocates Deepika Nandakumar, Viresh Kumar Bhawra, Sandhya Dutt, and Aisha Bansal.
