N.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY AND ORS. versus MARIYAMMA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ORS.

N.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY AND ORS. versus MARIYAMMA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ORS.

The suit was barred by law as per clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, specifically by limitation, provisions of the Specific Relief Act, and Order II Rule 2 CPC. The cause of action for relief arose in 1987 yet the suit was filed in 1996, making it hopelessly time-barred. Any relief sought should have been claimed in the earlier suit. The alleged manipulation of revenue records did not furnish a fresh cause of action.

Parties
Appellants: N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors.; Respondents: Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed LRs. and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Judgment Dated 26.5.2003 in M.s.a. No. 413 of 1998
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rejection of Plaint, Limitation, Specific Relief, Order II Rule 2 CPC, Vexatious Litigation, Exemplary Costs
Civil Procedure Rejection of Plaint Limitation Specific Relief Order II Rule 2 CPC Vexatious Litigation Exemplary Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors.

Appellants

Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed LRs. and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Judgment Dated 26.5.2003 in M.s.a. No. 413 of 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation and provisions of law
  2. 2 Whether the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, as relief ought to have been claimed in the earlier pending suit

Ratio Decidendi

The suit was barred by law as per clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, specifically by limitation, provisions of the Specific Relief Act, and Order II Rule 2 CPC. The cause of action for relief arose in 1987 yet the suit was filed in 1996, making it hopelessly time-barred. Any relief sought should have been claimed in the earlier suit. The alleged manipulation of revenue records did not furnish a fresh cause of action.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaint incurred costs throughout by respondents to be paid by appellants.
  • Appellants to pay Rs.10,000 as further exemplary costs to respondents.