2022 S C M R 1009
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
----S. 18 & First Sched., Art. 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Gift mutation---Suit for declaration challenging a gift mutation on grounds of fraud---Limitation period, commencement of---Scope---Date of knowledge of donor and not of his legal heir as the starting point for computing period of limitation---In the present case, bar of limitation applied to the challenge made by the respondent to the gift mutation of 1977 after a period of 32 years---Respondent was claiming his right over the suit property based on his inheritance from the estate of his father, and challenged the gift mutation, essentially on the ground that the same was the result of fraud, and asserted that he gained knowledge thereof some days before the institution of the suit---However, neither in the plaint nor in the evidence, did the respondent assert that his father, the purported donor, who remained alive for about 23 years after sanction of the gift mutation, was not aware of the gift mutation and thus could not challenge the same during his lifetime---Such omission on the part of the respondent, was crucial and in fact, defeated the very legal basis upon which he could have saved his claim from the bar of limitation---In the present case, the "person injuriously affected" by the alleged fraud (if it were committed) in getting the gift mutation sanctioned was the respondent's father(the purported donor)---Respondent derived his right to institute the suit to challenge the gift mutation from his father, being his legal heir, therefore, it was the date of the knowledge of his father, not of the respondent that was the starting point for computing the limitation period of six years provided in Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 - the residuary Article applicable to suits instituted, under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 for declaration of any right as to any property---Furthermore the respondent (plaintiff) did not assert in the plaint that the appellants (defendants), by means of fraud, kept, his father (the person injuriously affected) from the knowledge of his right to institute the suit to challenge the gift mutation, during his life, nor did he give the particulars thereof---Respondent (plaintiff) did not assert any such fraud of the appellants even against himself, and give any date of his attaining knowledge of such fraud and his right to institute the suit---Therefore, the benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for computing the limitation period for instituting the suit to challenge the gift mutation could not be extended to the respondent (plaintiff)---Appeal was partially allowed.
0 Comments