Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sathish Kumar T.V. (minor) and Rangamma, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2014 in O.S.No.344/2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, which was confirmed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, in R.A.No.40/2014 on 10.10.2014. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the original suit, claiming to be the wife and son of one Veerakyathaiah T.N., who they alleged died intestate. They sought a declaration that they are entitled to a share in the compensation amount deposited in court in respect of land acquired by the State of Karnataka for a tank project. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, the Tahsildar, the Officer-in-Charge of Sub Treasury, Puttarangamma (alleged second wife of Veerakyathaiah), and the Manager of State Bank of Mysore. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellants failed to prove their relationship with the deceased and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court confirmed this decision. In the second appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding limitation. The court noted that the acquisition proceedings took place in 1997-98 and the award was passed then, but the suit was filed in 2012, beyond the three-year limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court also found that the appellants did not produce sufficient evidence to prove their claim. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Suit for Declaration - Article 58 - Limitation period of three years from the date of cause of action - The appellants filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that they are entitled to compensation for land acquired in 1997-98, which was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 1997-98 when the award was passed. The court held that the suit was clearly barred by limitation and the courts below rightly dismissed it. (Paras 10-12) B) Civil Procedure Code - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court, in a second appeal, can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law, and the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to a share in the compensation amount deposited in court in respect of the acquired land, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, confirming the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, holding that the suit was barred by limitation and the appellants failed to prove their case.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 58
- Section 3
- Suit for declaration
- Burden of proof
- Regular Second Appeal
- Section 100 CPC
- Substantial question of law
