Issue of Limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts.
Background
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Rama Nand, was the bhumidar of a certain extent of agricultural land situated in Village Naraina in Delhi. The said plot of agricultural land was acquired and an Award was passed in relation to its acquisition.
Subsequently, Rama Nand died, leaving behind his widow, two sons – Nahar Singh and Dhan Singh and four daughters Shakuntala Devi, Krishna Devi, Parvati Devi and Santhosh. Later, the widow of Rama Nand also died.
As per the policy, whereunder the land was acquired, the bhumidar was entitled to allotment of alternative residential plot in lieu of the acquired land. Later, the alternative plot was allotted by respondents in the exclusive name of Dhan Singh, upon his production of registered Relinquishment Deed, as per letter.
The said letter to the respondent for allotment of an alternative residential plot in his name, based on the Relinquishment Deed issued by the other legal heirs in his favour, came to the notice of Nahar Singh, who thereupon filed an objection, before respondents stating that alternative plot shall not be allotted in the exclusive name of Dhan Singh. Further, it was stated therein that the Relinquishment Deed produced before the Authorities was obtained fraudulently by Dhan Singh. Subsequently, Nahar Singh died. Thereupon, his widow and children stepped into his shoes.
Court’s Observation
The division bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar said that the appellants cannot legally have any dispute or grievance in taking their statements in the plaint capable of determining the starting point of limitation for the purpose of application of Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) of the CPC.
“Though, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it will shed the said character and would get confined to one of question of law when the foundational fact, determining the starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in the plaint averments” the court added.
The court observed that in such circumstance, if the Court concerned is of the opinion that limitation could be framed as a preliminary point and it warrants postponement of settlement of other issues till determination of that issue, it may frame the same as a preliminary issue and may deal with the suit only in accordance with the decision on that issue.
“It cannot be said that such an approach is impermissible in law and in fact, it is perfectly permissible under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC and legal in such circumstances” the court stated.
The bench further stated that the issue limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts.
The court noted that despite taking up a specific allegation that the Relinquishment Deed was fraudulently obtained by the respondent, the plaintiffs had not chosen to assail and seek for its setting aside.
“In the absence of any successful challenge against the validity of the said Relinquishment Deed by making proper prayer in an appropriate proceedings, and that too within the prescribed period of limitation, the conclusion and finding of the First Appellate Court, cannot be said to be perverse or illegal as there can be no doubt with respect to the position that consideration of validity of a relinquishment deed and consideration of the period of limitation with reference to the same are different and distinct” the court said.
The court held that there is absolutely no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below warranting interference in invocation of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Case title: Sukhbiri Devi & Ors. v/s Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Civil appeal no.10834 of 2010
