Limitation Act, 1963 — Judgments

Recent judgments citing this act

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Nazia Mahjabeen on 21 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana21 Feb 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Determination of compensation amount in motor accident claim cases, considering income, future prospects, and number of dependents. 2. Joint and several liability of owner and insurer in motor accident claims. 3. Application of principles regarding loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and loss of love and affection in calculating compensation. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Petition (MACP) seeking compensation for the death of Mohd. Haneef in a road accident involving a lorry. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, which was challenged by the Insurance Company (Appellant) on grounds of excessive compensation and improper assessment of income. Held: A. On Quantum of Compensation: Majority View: The High Court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 18,65,250/- to Rs. 17,27,900/-. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s consideration of the deceased’s income, including potential future earnings as a part-time swimming coach, and applied relevant principles for calculating loss of dependency. It also aff

2. Maqbool Khan vs H.E.H The Nizam Awakaf Committee on 26 December, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana26 Dec 2023

   Case Name: Maqbool Khan vs H.E.H The Nizam Awakaf Committee on 26 December, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 26 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alisetty Subject: Limitation Act, Condonation of Delay, Second Appeal, Civil Procedure Code Key Legal Propositions 1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal is not a matter of routine, particularly when the delay is substantial, and requires detailed, cogent, and plausible reasons. 2. A party seeking condonation of delay must explain each day of the delay, and failure to do so, coupled with negligence or lack of bona fides, will preclude relief. 3. Courts must balance the need to allow access to justice with the need to prevent parties from sleeping on their rights and ensure finality in litigation. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a dispute concerning property rights. The Petitioner/Appellant, Maqbool Khan, sought condonation of a delay of 518 days in filing a Second Appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which affirmed a prior decree. The Respondent, H.E.H The Nizam Awakaf Com

3. Moghal Shamsheer Baig vs K. Nageshwara Rao and Ors on 03 October, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana3 Oct 2023

   Case Name: Moghal Shamsheer Baig vs K. Nageshwara Rao and Ors on 03 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 03 October, 2023 Bench: Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili & Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti Subject: Civil Appeal, Limitation Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal can be withdrawn by the appellant with the permission of the Court. 2. A petition for condonation of delay in filing an appeal becomes infructuous upon withdrawal of the appeal. 3. The Court may dismiss an appeal as withdrawn with no order as to costs. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against a judgment and decree dated 10.11.2012. A petition (I.A.No.1 of 2023) was filed seeking condonation of a 174-day delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal via a letter dated 27.09.2023. The respondents raised no objection to the withdrawal. Held: A. On Condonation of Delay & Withdrawal of Appeal: Majority View: The Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal and consequently dismissed both the petition for condonation of delay (I.A.No.1 of 2023) and the appeal suit

4. A.Rama (Died), & Ors. vs. O.Krishna Reddy & Ors. on 24 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana24 Apr 2023

   Case Name: A.Rama (Died), & Ors. vs. O.Krishna Reddy & Ors. on 24 April, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 24 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman Subject: Partition of Joint Family Property, Limitation Act, Adverse Possession Key Legal Propositions 1. A suit for partition of joint family property is governed by the Limitation Act, 1969, and must be filed within the prescribed period. 2. The limitation period for a person excluded from a joint family property to enforce a right to share therein is twelve years from the date the exclusion becomes known. 3. To establish adverse possession as against co-sharers, there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment, to the knowledge of the other co-sharers. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from a suit for partition of ancestral properties. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, dismissing the suit. The core issue revolves around limitation and whether the plaintiff was ousted from joint possession of the property, trigge

5. The Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, Chamanpally Village vs The State of Telangana on 16 December, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana16 Dec 2023

   Case Name: The Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, Chamanpally Village vs The State of Telangana on 16 December, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 16 December, 2023 Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti Subject: Cooperative Societies, Writ Appeal, Limitation Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A writ petition dismissed on the grounds of disputed questions of fact can be challenged through an intra-court appeal. 2. An appellant may be granted liberty to pursue alternative remedies available under the relevant statutory framework or through civil proceedings. 3. Courts may dispose of appeals allowing parties to seek remedies available under the law. Judgment Summary Background: This Writ Appeal arises from the dismissal of W.P.No.42766 of 2022 by a Single Judge on the grounds that it involved disputed questions of fact. The appellant, a fishermen cooperative society, sought to challenge the order. A petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed seeking condonation of delay. Held: A. On Issue of Disputed Questions of Fact: Majority View: The Court acknowledged the Single Judge’s reason

6. The Union Bank of India vs Sri. K Prem Dass on 22 September, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal can be dismissed for default if the appellant fails to represent the case or file proof of service despite multiple opportunities. 2. An application for condonation of delay can be dismissed for default. 3. Dismissal of an application for condonation of delay leads to the dismissal of the appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal is filed by the Union Bank of India against a judgment dated 29.03.2019. Simultaneously, an application (I.A. No. 1 of 2019) was filed seeking condonation of a 4-day delay in filing the appeal. Notices were issued to the respondent, but the appellant failed to appear or provide proof of service. Held: A. On Application for Condonation of Delay (I.A. No. 1 of 2019): Majority View: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed for default due to the appellant’s failure to represent the case or file proof of service despite multiple opportunities. Dissenting View: None. B. On Appeal Suit No. 523 of 2019: Majority View: The appeal was dismissed as a consequence of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay. Dissenting View: None. C. On Pr

7. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs M/s. Sri Naga Durga Silk Reeling Industry on 06 October, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Oct 2023

   Case Name: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs M/s. Sri Naga Durga Silk Reeling Industry on 06 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 October, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Insurance Law, Contract Law, Limitation Act, Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. An insurance company can investigate the cause of damage but cannot disregard a criminal court’s acquittal when assessing a claim. 2. A surveyor’s report, without assessing actual loss, is insufficient to deny a claim, especially when contradicted by a recognized valuer’s assessment. 3. Delay in informing the insurer is excusable if due to circumstances beyond the insured’s control, such as imprisonment. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit filed by M/s. Sri Naga Durga Silk Reeling Industry (Plaintiff) seeking recovery of a policy amount from The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Defendant) following a fire incident. The trial court decreed the suit, and the defendant appealed, primarily contesting the limitation period and alleging fraud. Held: A. On Issue of Limitation: Majority View: The Court held that the delay in informing the insurance

8. Uthem Ellawa @ Yellawa vs Kasarla Devaiah Chary on 25 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana25 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. In cases of third-party motor vehicle accidents, the insurer is liable to indemnify the compensation amount, with the right to recover it from the insured. 2. Even in the absence of proof of a valid driving license for the driver, the insurer remains liable to pay compensation, with recourse to recover the amount from the vehicle owner. 3. Tribunals should not exonerate insurance companies solely on the basis of the driver lacking a valid license, particularly when no evidence is presented by the insurer to substantiate this claim. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claims Petition (MACP) where the appellant sustained injuries in a road accident. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded compensation but exonerated the insurance company (Respondent No. 2) due to the driver of the offending vehicle not possessing a valid driving license. The appellant challenges the Tribunal’s decision to relieve the insurance company of liability. Held: A. On Liability of Insurance Company: Majority View: The Court modified the Tribunal’s order, holding that the insuranc

9. Cheruku Kishtaiah & Ors. vs. Shobha Rani & Ors. on 20 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Nov 2023

   Case Name: Cheruku Kishtaiah & Ors. vs. Shobha Rani & Ors. on 20 November, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: November 20, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu Subject: Civil Revision Petition – Condone Delay – Execution Proceedings – Limitation Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte decree cannot be condoned based on vague claims of being cheated by counsel or lack of awareness of proceedings, especially when the petitioners participated in the original suit. 2. Judgment Debtors are expected to be vigilant regarding court proceedings concerning them and cannot solely rely on assurances from co-debtors or counsel regarding the status of litigation. 3. A substantial delay in pursuing legal remedies requires a satisfactory explanation, and a mere assertion of illiteracy or reliance on others is insufficient to justify condoning the delay. Judgment Summary Background: This Civil Revision Petition arises from an order dated January 3, 2022, passed by the Court of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing an application seeking condonation of a 689-day

10. Anumula Indiramma & Ors. vs. Erukonda Prakash & Ors. on 28 December, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Anumula Indiramma & Ors. vs. Erukonda Prakash & Ors. on 28 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 December, 2023 Bench: P. Sam Koshy & N. Tukaramji, JJ. Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident – Quantum of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. In assessing compensation, gross income less tax and professional tax should be considered. 2. For a regular employee, 1/5th of the income may be added towards future prospects. 3. When determining the contribution to family, 1/3rd of the income should be deducted towards personal living expenses, especially if dependents are not fully established. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claim petition where the Tribunal awarded compensation for the death of Anumula Anjaiah due to a motor vehicle accident. The appellants (claimants) challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, specifically regarding the assessment of income, multiplier, and conventional heads of damages. Held: A. On Liability: Majority View: The Tribunal correctly exonerated the insurer as the material on record was insufficient to establish contractual liability with the car

11. K.V.Krupakar vs K.Sairam and others on 03 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana3 Apr 2023

    Case Name: K.V.Krupakar vs K.Sairam and others on 03 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 03 April, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani Subject: Civil Appeal, Condonation of Delay, Limitation Act, Partition Suit Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts have the power to condone delays in filing appeals, but must ensure it doesn’t lead to injustice or perpetuate dilatory tactics. 2. The term "sufficient cause" for condoning delay should be construed liberally, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. 3. Applications for condonation of delay must be drafted carefully and demonstrate genuine reasons for the delay, not mere negligence or a half-hearted attempt. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a partition suit concerning ancestral property. The appellant sought condonation of a 265-day delay in filing the appeal against a preliminary decree passed by the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant claimed the delay was due to illness and the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent contested the claim, alleging negligence and lack of genuine reasons for the delay. Held: A. On Condonation of Delay: Majority View: The Court d

12. Appeal Suit No.255 OF 2019 on 08 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana8 Feb 2023

    Case Name: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 08 February, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal, Limitation, Impleadment of Parties, Injunction, Dismissal for Default Key Legal Propositions 1. Appeals can be dismissed for default due to non-prosecution when no representation is made on behalf of the appellant, despite prior notice. 2. Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act require diligent prosecution by the appellant. 3. Applications for impleadment of parties and grant of injunction are subject to the same rules of prosecution as the main appeal. Judgment Summary Background: The present matter concerns Appeal Suit No. 255 of 2019 along with several Interlocutory Applications (I.A. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2019, I.A. No. 1 of 2021, and A.S. No. 2 of 2021). The applications sought condonation of delay, impleadment of parties, and an injunction. The Court had previously directed listing the matter with a warning that in the absence of representation, the applications and appeal would be dismissed. Held: A. On Appeal Suit No. 255 of 2019 & Interlocutory Applications: Major

13. Smt. Karne Susheela @ K. Susheelamma vs Sri Kushanoali Yadaqiri on 06 September, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Smt. Karne Susheela @ K. Susheelamma vs Sri Kushanoali Yadaqiri on 06 September, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu Subject: Civil Appeal – Partition of Property, SARFAESI Act, Limitation Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A suit for partition is barred if proceedings have been initiated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. 2. Civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters determined by a Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act (Section 34 of SARFAESI Act). 3. The period of limitation for filing a suit can be determined based on when the plaintiff gained knowledge of relevant documents or actions. Judgment Summary Background: This Civil Appeal arises from the dismissal of a suit seeking partition of a property. The appellant/plaintiff sought 50% share of the suit schedule property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellant appealed, alleging errors in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and law. The respondents include family members, India Bank, and an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARCIL) who initiated proceedings under th

14. Macherala Lingaiah & Ors. vs. Smt. Padam Sarojana on 29 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana29 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Macherala Lingaiah & Ors. vs. Padam Sarojana on 29 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 29 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu Subject: Civil Appeal, Limitation Act, Condone Delay Key Legal Propositions 1. Every day’s delay need not be explained, but a reasonable and acceptable explanation is necessary for condoning delay. 2. A mere assertion of awaiting amicable settlement without supporting material is insufficient to justify a substantial delay. 3. An inordinate delay in filing an appeal, without a proper explanation, warrants dismissal of the condone delay application and rejection of the appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal concerns an application to condone a delay of 983 days in filing a Second Appeal against a judgment and decree dated 22.07.2014. The appellants claimed the delay was due to attempts at amicable settlement through village elders. A concurrent petition sought a stay of further proceedings. Held: A. On Application for Condonation of Delay: Majority View: The Court dismissed the application to condone the delay of 983 days, finding the explanation – awaiting amicable settlement

15. Smt. Fathima Fouzia vs. Sri Nadir Ali Mirza & Ors. on 01 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana1 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Smt. Fathima Fouzia vs. Sri Nadir Ali Mirza & Ors. on 01 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 01 February, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal & Cross Objections relating to recovery of money; Contract Act; Limitation Act; Execution of documents. Key Legal Propositions 1. Acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and a promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, though both require writing and create a fresh starting point for limitation, differ in their application. 2. A suit filed based on a confirmation letter (Ex.A.1) acknowledging a time-barred debt is maintainable under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, reviving the remedy to enforce the right. 3. Evidence of prior agreements or oral statements is inadmissible to contradict or alter the terms of a written instrument like a confirmation letter, as per the principles of evidence. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal (C.C.C.A. No. 96 of 2003) arises from a suit filed for recovery of Rs. 25,49,961/- with interest. The plaintiffs sought recovery based on a confirmation letter (Ex.A.1) acknowledging a debt

16. K. Chayanatha Sharma vs. K. Jagadeshwar Sharma & Another on 24 March, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana24 Mar 2023

    Case Name: K. Chayanatha Sharma vs. K. Jagadeshwar Sharma & Another on 24 March, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 24 March, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Specific Performance of Contract, Limitation Act, Second Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. Where a suit for specific performance has no fixed date for performance, limitation begins when the plaintiff receives notice of refusal. 2. An appellate court can consider limitation even without a specific issue framed by the trial court, if the facts warrant it. 3. A Second Appeal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved; courts should not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff sought to enforce an agreement to purchase a portion of a property. The defendants contested the agreement's validity and asserted that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, finding the suit time-barred. Held: A. On Limitation:

17. Vojjela Vishnuvardhan & Ors. vs. K Venkatesh & Ors. on 07 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana7 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Vojjela Vishnuvardhan & Ors. vs. K Venkatesh & Ors. on 07 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 07 February, 2023 Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, CJ & N. Tukaramji, J. Subject: Writ Appeal – Direction to consider representation – Implementation of Decree – Removal of Names from Land Register – Contempt Proceedings. Key Legal Propositions 1. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be converted into execution proceedings. 2. A direction by the Court to consider a representation does not preclude parties from seeking remedies available in law. 3. The Court will not interfere with a learned Single Judge’s order directing consideration of a representation, absent compelling reasons. Judgment Summary Background: The Writ Appeal arises from an order dated 24.04.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge directing the Sub-Registrars (Respondents 1 & 2) to consider a representation dated 14.02.2019 filed by Respondent No.1 (the original writ petitioner). The Appellants allege that following the Single Judge’s order and the filing of a contempt case by Respondent No.1, their names were removed from the land register and replaced with R

18. Singahti Nurali vs Edla Chandraiah on 18 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana18 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Singahti Nurali vs Edla Chandraiah on 18 April, 2023 Court: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD Date of Judgment: 18 April, 2023 Bench: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU Subject: Civil Appeal – Perpetual Injunction, Possession of Property, Revenue Records Key Legal Propositions 1. A second appeal lies only if a substantial question of law is involved. 2. Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with findings of fact arrived at by the trial and first appellate courts. 3. A reasoned judgment with findings of fact is generally not subject to interference in a second appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This second appeal arises from a suit for perpetual injunction regarding land ownership. The plaintiff/appellant (Singahti Nurali) claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed and revenue records. The defendant/respondent (Edla Chandraiah) contested this, asserting prior ownership and alleging a mistake in revenue records exploited by the plaintiff’s vendors. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, upholding the defendant’s claim. Held: A. On Admissibility of Second Appeal: Majority View: The Cou

19. Mansamma & Others vs Bharati Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 20 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.180 of 2019 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 April, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice M.G. Priyadarsini Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident – Enhancement of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. Quantum of compensation in motor accident claims can be enhanced based on income proof and future prospects. 2. A multiplier of 14 can be applied to calculate loss of dependency considering the age of the deceased. 3. Conventional heads of compensation and parental consortium are applicable in fatal accident cases. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) for the death of S. Anjaneyulu in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.31,47,040/-. The appellants, the deceased’s wife and children, sought an increase in this amount. Held: A. On Quantum of Compensation: Majority View: The Court enhanced the compensation amount. The Tribunal had underestimated the deceased’s income. The Court fixed the annual income a

20. Akkala Sivanna vs Kareddi Venkat Reddy on 11 October, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana11 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Akkala Sivanna vs Kareddi Venkat Reddy on 11 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 11 October, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman Subject: Civil Appeal – Limitation Act – Adverse Possession – Title Dispute Key Legal Propositions 1. The limitation period for a suit based on title commences when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. 2. Registration of a document creates a deemed knowledge for the plaintiff regarding the transaction. 3. A plaintiff cannot extend the limitation period by claiming ignorance of a registered transaction, particularly when consistently litigating regarding revenue records. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from a suit concerning land ownership. The plaintiff (appellants) claimed inheritance of land, while the defendants (respondents) asserted ownership based on a registered sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. The first appellate court confirmed this dismissal, finding the limitation period began with the date of the sale deed. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court challenging the application of the limitation period.

Search all 3,313 judgments →