Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Suit for Possession Based on Licence — Limitation Issue Requires Trial. Courts below erred in dismissing suit on limitation without trial on that issue.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 9
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal arising from a suit for possession filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) against the respondent (defendant). The suit house originally belonged to Mrs. Estafania Pinto, who died in 1943. Her daughter, Natalia Maria De Souza, inherited the property. Natalia gave a part of the suit house to the respondent on licence with a condition that he would vacate when he constructed his own house. The respondent constructed a new house but failed to vacate despite a letter dated 27/04/1972. Natalia left for Karachi in 1972, and the respondent took possession of the entire house. The appellants, as legal heirs of Natalia, filed a suit for possession. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The second appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law regarding whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit on limitation without a trial on that issue. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the substantial question of law required consideration and that the suit could not be dismissed on limitation without a trial. The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the parties to appear on 26/11/2012.

Headnote

A) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Dismissal on Limitation Without Trial - The courts below dismissed the suit on limitation without the parties having gone to trial on that issue. The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed at admission required consideration, and the suit could not be dismissed on limitation without a trial on that issue. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the courts below are justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on the ground of limitation, particularly in a case like this where the parties did not go to trial on that issue?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Second appeal allowed. Judgments and decrees of the courts below set aside. Matter remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Parties directed to appear before the trial court on 26/11/2012.

Law Points

  • Limitation
  • Licence
  • Possession
  • Substantial question of law
  • Second appeal
  • Trial on limitation issue
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (10) 142

Second Appeal No.127 of 2004

2012-10-25

F.M. Reis

Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar for Appellants, Shri S.D. Lotlikar with Ms. G. Xettigar for Respondent

Salvador Jerome Francisco and Doris Maria D'Souza

Dattaram N. Asgaonkar (since deceased through LR's)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for possession of house based on licence

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought possession of suit house from respondent

Filing Reason

Respondent refused to vacate suit house after constructing his own house, despite licence condition

Previous Decisions

Trial court and first appellate court dismissed suit on ground of limitation

Issues

Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit on limitation without a trial on that issue?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the courts below erred in dismissing it without trial on limitation issue. Respondent supported the judgments of the courts below.

Ratio Decidendi

The substantial question of law framed at admission required consideration; the suit could not be dismissed on limitation without the parties having gone to trial on that issue.

Judgment Excerpts

Whether the courts below are justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on the ground of limitation, particularly in a case like this where the parties did not go to trial on that issue? The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal requires consideration.

Procedural History

Suit filed by appellants for possession. Trial court dismissed suit on limitation. First appeal dismissed. Second appeal admitted on substantial question of law on 18/08/2005. Present judgment on 25/10/2012 allowing appeal and remanding matter.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1963:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Plaintiff's Suit for Damages Against Bank in Negligence and Breach of Contract Claim. Plaintiff Fails to Prove Alleged Fraud and Collusion by Bank Officials in Dishonour of Bills of Exchange and Stoppage of Cash Credit Acc...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Suit for Possession Based on Licence — Limitation Issue Requires Trial. Courts below erred in dismissing suit on limitation without trial on that issue.