SATTI PARADESI SAMADHI & PHILLIAR TEMPLE versus M. SANKUNTALA (D) TR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 03-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 9 S.C.R. 221 
SATTI PARADES! SAMADHI & PHILLIAR TEMPLE 
v. 
M. SANKUNTALA (D) TR. LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5954 of 2014) 
JULY 03; JULY 
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ] 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
A 
B 
0. 14, r. 2(2) -
Court to prono1,mce judgment on all c 
issues - Disposal of suit on issue of limitation taking it as 
preliminary issue - Propriety of - Suit for declaration that 
settlement deeds executed by former trustee in favour of his 
daughters and grand daughter were null and void and for 
recovery of possession - Single Judge of High Court framing 
0 
issues and taking Issue No. 1 relating to limitation, as 
preliminary issue and dismissing the suit - Held: A plea of 
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law -
The language 
employed in sub-r. (2) of r. 2 of 0. 14 makes it clear that when 
an issue requires an inquiry into facts, it can be stated with 
E 
certitude that when an issue requires an inquiry into facts it 
cannot be tried as a preliminary issue -
In the instant case, 
unless there is determination of the fact which would not 
protect the plaintiff u/s 10 of Limitation Act, the suit cannot be 
dismissed on the ground of limitation -
It is not a case which 
F 
will come within the ambit and sweep of 0. 14, r. 2 which would 
enable the court to frame a preliminary issue for adjudication 
-
Issue No. 1 was an issue that pertained to fact and law and,. 
as such, could not have been adjudicated as a preliminary. 
issue -
Therefore, impugned judgments· are set aside and 
the matter is remitted to single Judge of High Court to dispose 
G 
of the suit as expeditiously as possible - Limitation Act, 196:3 
-s. 10. 
The plaintiff-appellant filed, in the year 1997, a suit for 
221 
H 
222 
SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A declaration that three settlement deeds dated 27 .3.1978 
executed by the former trustee in favour of his two 
daughters and a grand-daughter were null and void, and 
for recovery of ·possession of the land to the trust. The 
defendant filed written statement raising one of the 
B grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and, as 
such, did not desenie any adjudication. The single Judge 
of the High Court while framing the issues framed Issue 
No. 1 pertaining to limitation and taking it as a preliminary 
issue held that the defendants or• their legal 
c representatives had acquired right, title and interest by 
adverse possession and, therefore, the suit was not 
tenable being barred by limitation. The Division Bench of 
the High Court dismissed appellant's appeal. 
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration 
D before the Court was: whether an issue of limitation cold 
at all have been taken up as a preliminary issue. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. A plea of limitation is a mixed question of 
fact and 1aw. On a plain consideration of the language 
employed in sub-r. (2) of r. 2 of 0.14, CPC (as ins~rted by 
amendment in 1976) it can be stated with certitude that 
when an issue requires an inquiry into facts it cannot be 
F tried as a preliminary issue. [para 18] [230-G] 
G 
Ramrameshwari Devi and others v. Nirma/a Devi and 
others 201.1 (8). SCR 992 = 2011 (8) SCC 249; Ramesh D. 
Desai and others v. Bipin Vadi/a/ Mehta and others 2006 
Suppl. (3) SCR.414 = 2006 (5) sec 638 - relied on. 
Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon (1964) 4 SCR 409 
=AIR 1964 SC 497 - referred to. 
1.2. In the case at hand, unless there is determination 
of the fact which would not protect the plaintiff u/s 10 of 
H 
SATTI PARADES! SAMADHI & PHILLIAR TEMPLE v. M. 223 
SANKUNTALA (D) TR. LRS. 
the Limitation Act the suit cannot be dismissed on the 
A 
ground of limitation. It is not a case which wilLcome within 
the ambit and sweep of 0. 14, r.2 wh.ich would enable the 
court to frame a preliminary issue for aBjudication. The 
single Judge has remained totally oblivious of th.e said 
facet and adjudicated th& issue as if it falls under O. 14, 
B 
r.2. On the scheme of s.10 of the Limitation Act, certain 
facts are to be established to throw the lis from the 
sphere of the said provision so that it would come within 
the concept of limitation. The Division Bench has fallen 
into the same error without appreciating the facts in c 
proper· perspective. [para 19] [231-H; 232-A-C] 
1.3. Besides, the Division Bench, by taking recourse 
of Arts. 92 to 96 of the Limitation Act, without appreciating 
the factum that it uses the words "transferred by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.