Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007 passed by the Adhoc District Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 160 of 2004, decreeing the suit filed by the State of Goa (original plaintiff) against Valentino S. I. F. Rebello and his wife Victoria Rebello (original defendants). The defendants had initiated proceedings under Article 14(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 before the Deputy Collector, seeking re-survey of holding under Survey No. 56/2 of Village Velim and amalgamation of additional area of 227 square metres to increase the holding to 477 square metres. The Deputy Collector allowed the application by order dated 24.10.2002. The State challenged this order by filing a civil suit under Article 14(4) of the Code on 24.10.2003. The trial court decreed the suit, setting aside the Deputy Collector's order. The defendants appealed, contending that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the one-year period prescribed under Article 14(4). They argued that 'year' means a British calendar year under Section 3(66) of the General Clauses Act, so the period from 24.10.2002 ended on 23.10.2003, and the suit filed on 24.10.2003 was time-barred. The trial court should have dismissed the suit under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Additionally, the finding on title was perverse as the State failed to prove its title. The High Court agreed, holding that the suit was barred by limitation and the trial court's finding on title was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Computation of 'year' - Article 14(4) of Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 - The term 'year' in Article 14(4) must be construed as a British calendar year under Section 3(66) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The one-year period from 24.10.2002 ended on 23.10.2003, and the suit filed on 24.10.2003 was beyond limitation. Held that the suit was barred by limitation and the trial court erred in entertaining it. (Paras 5-8) B) Limitation - Duty of court - Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The trial court was obligated to dismiss the suit if it was barred by limitation, even if the plea was not raised. Held that the suit ought to have been dismissed on limitation grounds. (Para 5) C) Title - Burden of proof - The respondent-plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving its title over the suit property. The trial court's finding on title was perverse and unsustainable. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil suit challenging the Deputy Collector's order dated 24.10.2002 was barred by limitation under Article 14(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, and whether the trial court's finding on title was perverse.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.08.2007 in Civil Suit No. 160 of 2004 set aside. Suit dismissed.
Law Points
- Limitation period under special statute
- Computation of 'year' under General Clauses Act
- Bar of limitation under Section 3 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Burden of proof in title suits
