P.K. KUTTY AHUJA RAJA AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1147 · Decided: 01-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
,. 
"""-
P.K. KUTTY AHUJA RAJA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 1, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Limitation Act, 1963 : 
. 
Section 3-Agricultural Income-tax-Suit for recovery of the 
amount;-At the behest of the assessee the assessment was quashed by the C 
High Cowt-Hence limitation started running from the date the assessment 
order was quashed-Three years from that date the right to recover stood 
barred by limitation. 
The Sales Tax Officer & Ors. v. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Saraf & 
Ors., AIR (1959) SC 135 at 142, relied on. 
D 
;j.. 
/ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1998 of 
-
1977. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.77 of the Kerala High Court 
in AS.No. 74 of 1976. 
E 
A.S. Namhiar and P.K. Manohar for the Appellants. 
M.T. George for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of 
the High Court dated January 4, 1977 made in A.S. No.74 of 1976. The 
Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala had held that the limitation to 
F 
lay the suit started to the appellants on January 1, 1968 when the High G 
Court had earlier delivered the judgment quashing the assessment of 
agricultural income tax upon the estate of Raja Mananikraman and his 
estate is liable only to the extent of 1/693 share of that estate. The facts are 
not in dispute. The agricultural Income Tax Officer has made an assess-
ment of the agricultural income tax to the tune of Rs. 84,788.78 for the 
period between 1.11.1956 to 31.3.1958. It is not necessary to dilate all the H 
1147 
1148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A facts but suffice to state that for recovery thereof when demand was made, 
the succeeding Raja made payment in part discharging their liability. On 
October 12, 1960 a sum of Rs. 18069. 75 was paid and another successor 
on December 23, 1960 paid a sum of Rs. 21,000. As stated earlier, ultimate-
ly in O.P. No. 2413/65 by judgment and order dated January 1, 1968, the 
B 
High Court set aside the assessment and the liability to recover the tax was 
confined only to the extent of 1/693 share of the estate Raja Manavikraman. 
The Civil Suit for recovery of the amounts paid by the successors was 
filed in 1974. The Suit {O.S. No. 197174) was decreed by the trial court in 
1976. But on appeal, as stated earlier, the Division Bench held that it was 
C barred by limitation. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
Shri A.S. Nambiar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 
appellants contended that the appellants had discovered the mistake on 
October 5, 1971 when this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State 
against the orders passed in O.P.2413 of 1965 and that, therefore, the 
D . limitation begins to run from that date. Therefore, the suit was filed within 
'three years and such was not beyond time. The High Court was wrong in 
holding that the suit was barred by limitation. We are unable to agree with 
the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that at his behest the assessment 
was quashed by the High Court in the aforesaid O.P. on January 1, 1968. 
E Thereby limitation started running from that date. Once the limitation 
starts running, it runs its full course until the running of the limitation is 
intradicted by an order of the Court. Section 3 of the Limitation Act gives 
a power of entertaining the suit which says that, 
"Subject to the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 (inclusive), 
F 
every suit instituted, .............. after the prescribed period shall be 
dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 
Therefore, if any period of limitation is to be excluded from the 
prescribed period of limitation, the party necessarily has to satisfy any of 
the appropriate provisions in Section 4 to 24 of the limitation Act, 1963. 
G This is not one of such cases. Under those circumstances, the limitation 
having begun to run from January 1, 1968, it stood expired by efflux of time 
after three years. Therefore, from January 2, 1971, the right to recover 
stood barred by limitation. The pendency of the appeal, unless the opera-
tion of the judgment is suspended by this Court, does not amount to 
H suspend the operation of running of the limitation. We do not find any such 
r 
j 
J 
P.K KUTfY AHUJA RAJA v. STATE 
1149 
plea raised by the appellants in this case in that behalf. Therefore, the High A 
Court was right in its findmg that the suit was 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.