TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Plaintiff's Time-Barred Claim Dismissed by Supreme Court</h1> <h3>VALLIAMMA CHAMPAKA PILLAI Versus. SIVATHANU PILLAI AND ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the plaintiff's claim regarding certain suit items was time-barred. The appeal was dismissed, with ... - Issues Involved:1. Joint Family Status and Redemption of Mortgages2. Limitation Period for Redemption3. Acknowledgement of Liability and Fresh Start of Limitation4. Appropriate Article of Limitation Regulation for Suit by Non-Redeeming Co-MortgagorSummary:1. Joint Family Status and Redemption of Mortgages:The appellant contended that the mortgages were made by members of a joint Hindu family and that redemption by one co-mortgagor was on behalf of all. Alternatively, it was argued that if the family had divided in status, the property would be held as tenants-in-common. The court did not allow this plea as it was not raised in earlier proceedings. The court noted: 'The fact remains that this plea about the family being joint in status at the material time, was not agitated before the learned Single Judge, nor pressed into argument before the Full Bench in Letters Patent Appeal.'2. Limitation Period for Redemption:The trial court held that the plaintiff's suit was within the 50-year limitation period u/s Article 136 of the Travancore Limitation Regulation. However, the Single Judge and the majority of the Full Bench held that the suit was barred by limitation, applying a 12-year period u/s Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The dissenting judge opined that the 50-year period should start from the date of redemption by the redeeming co-mortgagor.3. Acknowledgement of Liability and Fresh Start of Limitation:The appellant argued that release deeds executed by the original mortgagees amounted to acknowledgements of liability, thus providing a fresh start of limitation. The court rejected this, stating: 'A mere admission of a past liability is not sufficient to constitute such an 'acknowledgement'.' The court found that the release deeds did not amount to acknowledgements of a subsisting liability.4. Appropriate Article of Limitation Regulation for Suit by Non-Redeeming Co-Mortgagor:The court examined whether the suit was governed by Article 136 of the Travancore Limitation Regulation (50 years) or Article 132/144 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (12 years). The court concluded that the suit was time-barred regardless of the article applied, as it was filed more than 28 years after the last redemption in 1918. The court stated: 'The suit was thus filed more than 12 years after the expiry of the 50 years' limitation prescribed for a suit for redemption under Article 136 of the Travancore Regulation, and more than 28 years after the redemption in 1918.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the plaintiff's claim regarding suit items 31 to 40, 42, and 44 was time-barred. The appeal was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs. The court concluded: 'For all the fore-going reasons, we uphold the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff's claim in regard to suit items 31 to 40, 42 and 44 was time barred and dismiss the appeal.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
