Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
P.K. KUTTY ANUJA RAJA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (2) 496 JT 1996 (2) 167
1996 SCALE (2)14
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the
judgment and decree of the High Court dated January 4,
1977 made in A.S. No.74 of 1976. The Division Bench of the
High Court of Kerala had held that the limitation to lay the
suit started to the appellants on January 1, 1968 when the
igh Court had earlier delivered the judgment quashing the
assessment of agricultural income tax upon the estate of
Raja Mananikraman and his estate is liable only to the
extent of 1/693 share of that estate. The facts are not in
dispute. The agricultural Income Tax Officer has made an
assessment of the agricultural income tax to the tune of
Rs.84,788.78 for the period between 1.11.1956 to 31.3.1958.
It is not necessary to dilate all the facts but suffice to
state that for recovery thereof when demand was made, the
succeeding Raja made payment in part discharging their
liability. On October 12, 1960 a sum of Rs.18069.75 was paid
and another successor on December 23, 1960 paid a sum of
Rs.21,000/-. As stated earlier, ultimately in O.P.
No.2413/65 by judgment and order dated January 1, 1968, the
High Court set aside the assessment and the liability to
recover the tax was confined only to the extent of 1/693
share of the estate Raja Manavikraman.
The Civil Suit for recovery of the amounts paid by the
successors was filed in 1974. The Suit (O.S. No.197/74) was
decreed by the trial court in 1976. But on appeal, as stated
earlier, the Division Bench held that it was barred by
limitation. Thus this appeal by special leave.
Shri A.S. Nambiar, the learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants contended that the appellants had
discovered the mistake on October 5, 1971 when this Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the orders
passed ln O.P.2413 of 1965 and that, therefore, the
limitation begins to run from that date. Therefore, the suit
was filed within three years and such was not beyond time.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The High Court was wrong in holding that the suit was barred
by limitation. We are unable to agree with the learned
counsel. It is not in dispute that at his behest the
assessment was quashed by the High Court in the aforesaid
O.P. on January 1, 1968. Thereby the limitation started
running from that date. Once the limitation starts
running, it runs its full course until the running of
the, limitation is intradicted by an order of the Court.
Section 3 of the Limitation Act gives a power of
entertaining the suit which says that,
"Subject to the provisions contained in
Section 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit
prescribed period shall be dismissed
although limitation has not been set up
as a defence."
Therefore, if any period of limitation is to be
excluded from the prescribed period of limitation,
the party necessarily has to satisfy any of the
appropriate provisions in Section 4 to 24 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. This is not one of such cases.
Under those circumstances, the limitation having begun to
run from January 1, 1968, it stood expired by efflux of time
after three years. Therefore, from January 2, 1971, the
right to recover stood barred by limitation. The pendency of
the appeal, unless the operation of the judgment is
suspended by this Court, does not amount to suspend the
operation of running of the limitation. We do not find any
such plea raised by the appellants in this case in that
behalf. Therefore, the High Court was right in its finding
that the suit was barred by limitation.
It is contended that in The Sales Tax Officer
& ors. vs. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Saraf & Ors, [AIR
1959 SC 135 at 142], that when the knowledge was
acquired by the party for the first time before the
judgment was rendered by this Court in previous
litigation, the claim for refund would start from the
judgment rendered by this Court. We do not have that
fact situation in this case. The appellants is a party
to the proceedings and at his instance,the assessment
of agricultural income tax was quashed as referred to
hereinbefore and having had the assessment quashed the
cause of action had arisen to him to lay the suit for
refund unless it is refunded by the State. The knowledge of
the mistake of law cannot be countenanced for extended time
till the appeal was disposed of unless, as stated earlier,
the operation of the judgment of the High Court in the
previous proceedings were stayed by this Court. The suit,
therefore, is barred by limitation.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.