Posted On by &filed under Bombay High Court, High Court.

Bombay High Court
3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
                                      1                  S.A.NO.162.89

                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                SECOND APPEAL NO. 162 OF 1989

       1]    Ramkrishna Rajaram Raut
      2]     Vishwanath Rajram Raut

      3]     Yadav Rajram Raut
          All   R/o   Kanadkhed,   Taluka 
          Hingoli   District   Parbhani,   Now 
          District Hingoli.


                     ig V E R S U S
             Narayan   S/o   Limbaji   Raut,Since 
             deceased through his L.Rs.
     1-a] Smt. Alkabai (widow) w/o Narayan 
          Raut,     Age   70   years   Occupation 
          Household   R/o   Pain   Kali   Ta. 
          Washim District Washim

     1-b] Sow   Gangabai   Ramchandra   Thombe 
          (Daughter)   Age   50   years 

          Occupation   Agriculture,   R/o 
          Jabbrum Thombe Post Pardi Asra, 
          Ta. and District Washim.
     1-c] Mahadeo   S/o   Narayan   Raut   (Son) 

          Age   40   years   occupation 
          Agriculture   R/o   Pain     Kali,   Ta 
          and District Washim.
     1-d] Gajanan   S/o   Narayan   Raut 
          (   Son   )Age   35   years   occupation 

          Agriculture, R/o Washim.

     Mr.A.M.Dabir,Advocate for Appellants
     Mr.A.R.Kale,Advocate holding for
     Mr.S.V.Natu,Advocate for respondents

                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:33:33 :::
                                          2                  S.A.NO.162.89

                             CORAM  : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.

DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2010


1] When the appeal was admitted in 1989, no
substantial question of law was formulated. Having

heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
parties and having gone through the record
following substantial question would arise for my


(1) Whether the suit of the respondent/
plaintiff is barred by limitation ?

2] The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit. He
said that he is owner and possessor of the suit

land (Agricultural land situated at village
Kanadkhed). He said that the suit land was his

ancestral property and during his father’s life
time his father alienated it in favour of the

appellant’s father in the year 1966, without
having legal necessity. He said further that
though property was sold in 1966, his father
remained in possession till his death and

thereafter he cultivated the same till 1980. He
said in the month of May 1980, appellants who are
brothers inter-se dispossessed him forcibly. So,
he brought this suit in the year 1985 for
declaration that the he was owner of the land and
that the alienation made by his father in 1966 in
favour of the appellant’s father was not binding

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:33 :::
3 S.A.NO.162.89

upon him and for possession.

3] The Trial Court initially held that the
respondent did not prove that sale effected by his

father was not binding on him. The Trial Court
also held that the respondent could not prove his
possession till 1980. In other words, the Trial

Court held that in 1966 possession of the suit
land was delivered to the appellant’s father and
since then father of the appellants and appellants

are in possession. In view of these two findings

the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

4] The matter went to appeal court and the
learned Additional District Judge Hingoli held
that the respondent not only proved that the suit

property was his ancestral property but could also
prove that the alienation of the suit property was

not for legal necessity. So, It was held that he
was entitled to get the possession back.

5] Although, the appellants in the pleadings
clearly stated that they are in possession of the
suit land since 1966, both the Courts below did

not frame necessary issue of limitation. Section 3
of the Limitation Act reads as under-

3.Bar of Limitation :(1) Subject to
the provisions contained in sections 4
to 24 (inclusive) every suit
instituted, appeal preferred, and
application made after the prescribed
period shall be dismissed, although
limitation has not been set up as a

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:33 :::
4 S.A.NO.162.89


(2) for the purposes of this Act-

(a) A suit is instituted-

(i) in an ordinary case when the

plaint is presented to the proper
pauper is made; and

(ii) in the case of a pauper, when his
application for leave to sue as a

pauper is made; and

(iii)in the case of a claim against a
company which is being would up by the

Court, whn the claimant first sends in
his claim to the official liquidator;

(b) any claim by way of a set off, or
a counter claim, shall be treated as a
separate suit and shall be deemed to

have been instituted.

(i) in the case of set off, on the
same date as the suit in which the set

off is pleaded;

(ii)in the case of a counter claim, on
the date on which the counter claim is
made in Court;

(c) an application by notice of motion
in a High Court is made when the
application is presented to the proper
officer of that Court.

6] It is clear from the above provision that,
even though defendant fails to take up specific
defence based on limitation, it is duty of the
Court to frame such issue, if it is found
necessary. The question is whether such issue
ought to have been framed at the trial stage or at

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:33 :::
5 S.A.NO.162.89

least at first appeal stage? As said above, the
facts are so blatant that any one, who would read

the plaint, would question the maintainability of
such suit for want of limitation. As said above,

way back in the year 1966, admittedly the
respondent’s father alienated the suit land to the
father of the appellants, it was through a

registered sale deed. It has come on record that
it is case of the respondent/plaintiff that 10 to
12 years prior to filing of the suit his father

died. The suit is filed in the year 1985, so

approximately the death of respondent’s father
took place some time between 1973 to 1975. The age

of the plaintiff on the date of filing of suit is
shown to be 50 years. So, in the year 1966 his
age was approximately 31 years. During his

majority, if his father effected alienation of the
joint family property, which included his

undivided share and if such undivided share had
come to his share on account of his birth in the

family, it was for him to challenge the
alienation by filing the suit for declaration that
the alienation was bad and not binding on him.

7] The question is what would be the limitation
for such suit? The Article 58 of the Limitation
governs such a suit and provides three years
period of limitation from the moment the right to
sue first accrues. As said above, the right to sue
accrued to the respondent on the same date when
his father effected alienation. The respondent can

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:33 :::
6 S.A.NO.162.89

not plead ignorance of the knowledge of the sale
deed because, as said above, the transaction was

through a registered sale deed. It has also come
on record that pursuant to the transaction a

mutation was taken in the revenue record and as
said above, the appellant’s father came in
possession of the suit land. The suit is certainly

not filed within three years, so suit is
hopelessly time barred. The appeal, therefore,
deserve to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The

Judgment of First Appellate Court is set aside and

suit of the respondent stands dismissed with




::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:33 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.165 seconds.