Civil appeal concerning a long-standing property dispute. The appeal challenges a High Court decision that remanded a case to a trial court to reconsider the issue of limitation, despite prior concurrent findings from the trial and first appellate courts that the suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court’s judgment examines the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly regarding its power to remand cases and the mandatory nature of framing and deciding substantial questions of law in second appeals. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reverses the High Court’s decision, reinstating the original dismissal of the suit due to the substantial delay in its filing and the adequate prior consideration of the limitation issue.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100; Order 6 Rule 4 and 10; Order 41 Rule 23, 23A and 25 – Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3; Article 59 – Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Concurrent findings – Limitation – Remand of case – It is a general rule that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below – Both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence let-in by the parties, categorically held that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation – Held that the evidence produced would abundantly make it clear that ‘D’ and thereafter, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were well aware of the earlier proceedings and the decree passed in the first suit – The auction purchaser’s title was confirmed by court orders, and subsequent transfers were properly registered and recorded – Therefore, Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who have knowingly slept over their right to challenge the sale and allowed further rights to flow, cannot later question the sale of larger extent of share in an unpartitioned property – Do not find any plausible reasons for delay – Limitation is a matter of statute and must be strictly enforced, more so when the earlier transaction or sale is well within the knowledge of the parties – This principle assumes greater significance in the present case, where the delay extends to seventeen years for filing the suit, despite the fact that they were arrayed as respondents/Judgment Debtors in the execution proceedings – Furthermore, protection of bona fide purchasers for value is a significant consideration, and any disturbance to their rights or titles after such a long period, would create uncertainty in property transactions and undermine the sanctity of court sale – Held that the High Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial solely with respect to the issue of limitation; and that, the Courts below have rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief – Impugned judgment of the High Court liable to be set aside – Judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit, as affirmed by the First Appellate Court, restored.
(Para 23 and 24)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 14 – Framing of issues – The object of framing an issue is to determine the material point of disputes between the parties, for the purpose of adjudication – Issues can be framed on a question of law or fact or a mixed question of law and fact – The decision on the issue settles the lis in favour of either of the parties – A distinct issue is to be formed when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by another – Also, there is no necessity to frame an issue, when the parties are not at dispute on a particular fact or law – At times, despite pleadings, when a specific issue is not framed, but when both the parties to the lis have let in evidence and rendered their arguments on a point, the decision on which is intrinsically connected to the main issue, then the Court is bound to render a finding on the point of dispute before deciding the connected issue, one way or another – In that case, it becomes the duty of the Court to analyze the evidence before it and render a decision on all disputed questions of fact or law, directly or indirectly in issue, so as to put an end to the lis.
(Para 19)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 14; Order 41 Rule 23, 23A and 25 – Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3 – Limitation – Non framing of issue – Trial Court though had not framed a specific issue on “limitation”, the same could very well fall under the broader issue – The question of limitation can be encompassed within the larger question determined by the First Appellate Court for determination – The failure of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court to formulate a separate issue is not fatal to the judgment rendered by them and has not caused any prejudice to the parties – Further, the trial Court, in the performance of its duty, mandated under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has taken up the question of limitation and upon perusal of the overall pleadings and evidence, has rightly decided the same – Held that do not agree with the decision of the High Court in remanding the matter to the trial Court, that too after this length of time, when all materials were available before it.
(Para 22)
(D) Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6 Rule 4 and 10 – Limitation – Pleadings – Question of law and fact – Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law – However, there is no hard and fast rule that every question of limitation is to be treated as a mixed question of fact and law – In cases, where the action is initiated after several years after the right to sue accrued, without any pleadings to explain the reasons for delay or as to when the fraud was discovered, the question of limitation is to be treated as a question of law – A recourse may be had to Order VI Rules 4 and 10 CPC, which mandates that specific particulars would have to be given in the pleadings – Once such a plea is raised in the pleadings, then the burden lies on the person to prove that the delay was due to any plausible reason and it is always well within the knowledge of the other party to contend and prove that the opposite party had prior knowledge about the disputed fact and that his right to sue or defend had also accrued by that date – Even in the absence of specific pleadings regarding the limitation in the plaint or a plea of defense, there is a bounden duty on every civil Court to ascertain as to whether the lis has been initiated within the time prescribed under law, even if the parties to the lis had not raised any objections – This right flows from the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
(Para 20)
R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through Lrs. And Another V. Rajmani And Others
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 478: (DoJ 09-04-2025)
