RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR versus P.K. PATTABIRAMAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 21-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR 
v. 
P.K. PATTABIRAMAN AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY21, 2001 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Limitation : 
Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, I 864 : Section 59. 
Declaration of title and possession-Suit for-Plaintiff challenged the 
sale of land in favour of auction-purchaser-Challenge dismissed-Suit filed 
within period of/imitation-But State impleaded as defendant beyond period of 
limitation-Maintainability of-Held: Though suit as initially laid is within 
period of limitation it is incompetent as State not impleaded-On the date of 
impleadment of State suit was barred by time-Hence, trial cou11 rightly 
dismissed the suit as not maintainable. 
Limitation Act, 1963 : 
Section 2 I proviso-Declaration of title and possession-Suit for-limi-
tation-Suit against auction-purchaser filed within period of limitation-But 
State impleaded as defendant beyond period of limitation-No specific order 
that impleadment of state is with effect from institution of suit-Held: Merely 
adding or substituting a paT1y by CouT1 is not enough-In the absence of 
specific order that impleadment of a pa11y is from the date of institution of suit, 
limitation will run from the date of impleadment-Hence, suit barred by 
limitation. 
The respondent-plaintiff tiled an application under Section 38 of the 
Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for cancellation of auction sale of 
the suit land iu favour of the appellant-defendant. After enquiry, the 
Collector, on 11.1.1977, rejected the respondent's application and con· 
firmed the sale in favour of the appellant. 
On 12.2.1977 the respondent tiled a suit for declaration of title and 
possession of the suit land, Initially the respondent did not implead the 
State as a defendant in the suit. Subsequently, the trial court, on 11.10.1979, 
allowed the impleadment of the State as defendant No. 2. 
23 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was 
barred by limitation as it was not brought within six months of the date 
~ 
when the cause of action arose. However, the High Court set aside the trial 
court's order. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that under the proviso 
B 
to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the impleadment of defendant 
No. 2 should be deemed to be which effect from the date of institution of 
suit and, therefore, the suit was within the period of limitation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD : 1. In the present case, the cause of action arose when the 
application of the respondent was rejected and the sale was confirmed, 
that is, on 11.1.1977. It is also true that the suit was laid in the civil court 
within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose. But in 
the said suit, the State was not impleaded as defendant and in the absence 
D 
of the State, the suit instituted by the plaintiff was incompetent. [27-D-E] 
2. Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 contemplates two situations 
- one under the substantive provision which provides that where after 
filing of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit 
shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been brought on the day when he 
E 
was added or substituted as a party in the suit. The second situation con-
·"f--
templated under the proviso to the substantive provision is where the court 
is satisfied that a new plaintiff or defendant was omitted to be added or 
substituted due to a mistake in good faith, the court may direct that the 
suit, as regards the newly added or substituted party, shall be deemed to 
F 
have been instituted on any earlier date. Merely adding or substituting a 
plaintiff or defendant by the court is not encugh. In the absence of any 
order that the impleadment of newly added or substituted party shall take 
·"· 
effect from the date of institution of a suit, the period of limitation so far as 
the newly added or substituted party is concerned shall run from the date 
G 
of their impleadment in the suit. There is no such order passed under 
proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the suit filed by 
the respondent was barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 59 
of the Act. [28-A-C; D-E] 
--
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2462 of 1991. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 203.91 of the Madras High Court 
RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR v. P.K. PATTABIRAMAN [Y.N. KHARE, J.] 
25 
in S.A 

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