Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a suit house property, seeking a declaration that they have a right to worship God 'Narsinha' and that two sale deeds dated 8th May, 2000 and 15th September, 2000 were null and void. The defendants filed written statements. During trial, the plaintiffs examined six witnesses, who were cross-examined by defendant nos.1 to 4. Later, defendant no.5 appeared and sought to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses. The trial court directed the plaintiffs to produce their witnesses for cross-examination by defendant no.5 at their cost. The plaintiffs sought review under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was rejected. The trial court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deeds since their execution in 2000 but filed the suit in 2007. The first appellate court confirmed this finding. In second appeal, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Article 58 - Suit for Declaration - Suit for partition and declaration that sale deeds dated 8th May, 2000 and 15th September, 2000 were null and void - Plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deeds since their execution - Suit filed in 2007 beyond three years from the date of knowledge - Held that the suit was barred by limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Paras 5-8). B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - No substantial question of law - Courts below concurrently held that the suit was barred by limitation and that the sale deeds were valid - Held that no interference is warranted in second appeal as the findings are not perverse (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for partition and declaration that sale deeds were null and void was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below suffer from any perversity warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 58
- Partition suit
- Declaration
- Sale deed
- Null and void
- Knowledge of transaction
- Concurrent findings
- Second appeal
- Substantial question of law
