The High Court allowed this appeal against the dismissal of a suit for damages arising from eviction. The Court held the suit was barred by limitation under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The appeal was allowed in part (on limitation) and the original suit dismissed; appeal against dismissal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1945
AS NO. 409 OF 2002
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.2.2002 IN OS 8/1998 OF DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
UMMATHABIYYAPURA BADHARUDHEEN KOYA, S/O. ABOOSALIHKOYA THANGAL, ANDROTH ISLAND BY ADVS. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. BY ADVS. SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATOR,U.T.OF LAKSHDWEEP
THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.06.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan, J.
==============================
A.S No.409 of 2002
========================== Dated this the 15th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
The dismissal of a suit for damages is under challenge by the plaintiff.
A.S No.409 of 2002
-: 2 :-
actions of the defendants are under the Regulation
adequately protected under Section 117 of the Regulation. It was also contended that the suit is barred by limitation.
limitation. Further it was held that the actions of the defendants are saved under Section 117 of the Regulation.
determination is, whether the suit is barred by limitation. If the said question is answered in favour of the plaintiff, then, the other question would arise
for consideration as to whether the action of the defendants were adhering to the relevant Regulations.
under the Regulations. Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the period of limitation for any act allegedly done in pursuance of any enactment in force is one year from the date of the act. Even going by the
A.S No.409 of 2002
-: 3 :-
plaintiff's case, the act of demolition/eviction was on 18.10.1996. The suit is filed only on 22.08.1998, which is beyond one year. Prior to the filing of the suit the plaintiff had issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of the said notice is marked as Ext A6 dated 08.12.1997. The plaintiff is entitled for exclusion of the period of notice. However, even if the said period is excluded, that will not help the plaintiff to save the limitation. Even the notice was sent after a period of one year. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court was right in its finding.
The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge
vdv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit filed for damages is barred by limitation.
Whether the eviction proceedings were in compliance with the relevant Regulations.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ummathabiyyapura Badharudheen Koya
Administrator, U.T. of LakshdwEEP, Kavaratti
Union of India
Sathish Ninan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
