Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the Court can dismiss a suit as time barred even when specific issue regarding limitation is not framed. 

•  The Supreme Court held this in the case of R Nagraj (Dead) through Lrs v. Rajmani and others (2025). 

What was the Background of R Nagraj (Dead) through Lrs v. Rajmani and others (2025) Case?  

• The appeal is against a judgment of the Madras High Court dated 17th February 2020, which set aside lower court decisions and remitted the matter back to the trial court. 
• The case originated from a joint Hindu family consisting of Rangappa Gowdar and his sons, Dasappa Gowdar and Samiappan. 
• Initially, Samiappan's wife (Sunderammal) and daughter (Vennila) filed suit O.S.No.851 of 1965 seeking maintenance against Samiappan, his father Rangappa Gowdar, and brother Dasappa Gowdar. 
• The maintenance suit was decreed on 26th August 1965, and suit properties were attached in execution proceedings. 
• During the pendency of execution, Rangappa Gowdar and Dasappa Gowdar died, and their legal heirs were brought on record. 
• Through court auction, the suit 'A' schedule property was purchased by Karivarada Gowdar, with sale confirmed on 25th September 1970. 
• When Samiappan tried to encroach on the property, Karivarada Gowdar filed and won a suit for permanent injunction. 
• The property subsequently changed hands multiple times, eventually being purchased by Appellant Nos. 1 and 2. 
• Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (daughters and wife of Dasappa Gowdar) filed suit O.S.No.257 of 1982 seeking to set aside the earlier decree, partition the properties, and obtain an injunction against the subsequent purchasers. 
• The trial court dismissed this suit on 08th September 1994, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge on 28th January 1997. 
• However, the High Court allowed their second appeal on 17th February 2020, remitting the matter back to the trial court specifically to determine if the suit was barred by limitation. 
• The current appeal before the Supreme Court challenges the High Court's judgment, with interim stay granted on the High Court's order. 
• Several respondents have passed away during the proceedings, with their legal representatives brought on record, while some proforma parties have been deleted from the array of parties.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter back to the trial court on the issue of limitation, despite concurrent findings by lower courts. 
• The Trial Court had ruled that the action to set aside the decree should have been taken within three years as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) but the suit was filed after 17 years. 
• The First Appellate Court affirmed this view, stating that the plaintiffs had "slept over for 17 years" against the mandate of Section 59 of the Limitation Act. 
• The Court clarified that the purpose of the Limitation Act is not to destroy vested rights but to prevent indefinite litigation by prescribing time periods for initiating actions. 
• While limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law, when an action is initiated many years after the right to sue accrued without explanation for the delay, limitation becomes a question of law. 
• Even without specific pleadings regarding limitation, every civil court has a duty to determine whether a case has been initiated within the prescribed time, as mandated by Section 3 of the Limitation Act. 
• Although the trial court did not frame a specific issue on "limitation," this could be encompassed within the broader issues, and this procedural omission was not fatal to the judgment. 
• The evidence clearly showed that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were aware of the earlier proceedings and decree, as they were parties in the execution proceedings. 
• The Court emphasized that limitation is a matter of statute and must be strictly enforced, especially when earlier transactions were within the knowledge of the parties. 
• Protection of bona fide purchasers is a significant consideration, and disturbing their rights after such a long period would create uncertainty in property transactions. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the decisions of the trial court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit.

What is Section 3 of Limitation Act ? 

• Section 3 of Limitation Act provides for Bar of Limitation. 
• Constituents of Section 3: 
  • Courts must dismiss suits, appeals, and applications filed after the prescribed limitation period. 
  • This dismissal is mandatory even if the opposing party does not raise limitation as a defense. 
  • The provision is subject to exceptions contained in sections 4 to 24 of the Act. 
  • This creates a statutory duty for courts to consider limitation on their own, regardless of whether parties raise the issue. 
  • The provision establishes limitation as a matter of law that cannot be waived by parties. 
  • Courts must apply this rule automatically to prevent stale claims from being entertained. 
• V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and another (2005) 
  • The mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act is that it is the duty of the court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation irrespective of the fact that limitation has not been set up as a defence. 
  • If a suit is ex facie barred by the law of limitation, a court has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the defendant intentionally has not raised the plea of limitation.