C.NATRAJAN versus ASHIM BAI AND ANR.

C.NATRAJAN versus ASHIM BAI AND ANR.

The question whether a suit is barred by limitation depends on facts and averments in the plaint, not on defence. Where suit is for possession as consequence of declaration of title, Article 58 of Limitation Act does not apply. Limitation does not commence unless there is a clear and unequivocal threat to plaintiff’s right. Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was not maintainable because issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law requiring trial.

Parties
Appellant: C. Natrajan; Respondent: Ashim Bai; Respondent: Another Respondent
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rejection of Plaint, Limitation, Declaration of Title, Recovery of Possession
Civil Procedure Property Law Rejection of Plaint Limitation Declaration of Title Recovery of Possession

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. Natrajan

Appellant

Ashim Bai

Respondent

Another Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation and consequently whether the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Ratio Decidendi

The question whether a suit is barred by limitation depends on facts and averments in the plaint, not on defence. Where suit is for possession as consequence of declaration of title, Article 58 of Limitation Act does not apply. Limitation does not commence unless there is a clear and unequivocal threat to plaintiff’s right. Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was not maintainable because issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law requiring trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment set aside
  • Costs awarded to appellant, counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000