R. Nagaraj (Dead) through LRs. and Another vs Rajmani and Others

Held: Judgment of High Court unsustainable – U/s.100 CPC, the High Court possesses the authority to entertain second appeals strictly on substantial questions of law – Upon admitting such an appeal, the High Court is empowered to frame substantial questions and adjudicate them directly, without the necessity of remanding the matter to the trial court – This approach ensures judicial efficiency and prevents unnecessary prolongation of litigation – In the instant case, without deciding the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, the High Court only considered the additional substantial question of law, observing that both the Courts failed to frame any issue in respect of the limitation, though held that the suit was barred by limitation – The failure of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court to formulate a separate issue, is not fatal to the judgment rendered by them and has not caused any prejudice to the parties – Further, the trial Court, in the performance of its duty, mandated u/s.3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has taken up the question of limitation and upon perusal of the overall pleadings and evidence, has rightly decided the same – It is a general rule that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below – In the present case, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence let-in by the parties, categorically held that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation – Respondent nos.1 to 3, have knowingly slept over their right to challenge the sale and allowed further rights to flow, cannot later question the sale of larger extent of share in an un-partitioned property – Any plausible reasons for delay not found – Limitation is a matter of statute and must be strictly enforced, more so when the earlier transaction or sale is well within the knowledge of the parties – This principle assumes greater significance in the present case, where the delay extends to seventeen years for filing the suit, despite the fact that they were arrayed as respondents/Judgment Debtors in the execution proceedings – Furthermore, protection of bona fide purchasers for value is a significant consideration, and any disturbance to their rights or titles after such a long period, would create uncertainty in property transactions and undermine the sanctity of court sale – Therefore, the High Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial solely with respect to the issue of limitation; and that, the Courts below have rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation and respondent nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief – Impugned judgment is set aside – Judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit, as affirmed by the First Appellate Court, are restored. [Paras 12.1, 17, 22, 23]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Legal position – Discussed. [Para 12]

Framing of issues – Determination of the material point of disputes – Mixed question of facts and issues – Discussed. [Para 18]

Limitation Act, 1963 – Object of – Discussed. [Para 18] Limitation – Mixed question of fact and law – No hard and fast rule that every question of limitation is to be treated as a mixed question of fact and law – Discussed. [Para 20] Procedural Laws – Violation of – Discussed. [Para 21.1]