Holding

The suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff’s title is perfected under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Summary

The appellant, a son of Prahalad, was a minor when the property was sold to the plaintiff on 6 February 1953. The plaintiff filed a suit for trespass in 1971, alleging that the appellant had forcibly entered the land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the High Court examined the date on which the appellant attained majority, concluding that he became a major in 1966 (or 1963) and therefore had only three years from that date to institute a suit under Sections 6, 8 and 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the suit was filed in 1971, it was beyond the three‑year period and thus barred by limitation. Consequently, the plaintiff’s title was deemed perfected by operation of Section 27, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff in 1971 is barred by the limitation period applicable to a person who was a minor at the time of the cause of action.
Whether Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, operates to perfect the plaintiff’s title when the suit is time‑barred.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963s. 27, s. 6, s. 60, s. 8

Subjects

Limitation Actdisabilityminorsection 27adverse possessiontitle by limitationcivil suitproperty law

Judgment

-
~
~
BAILOCHAN KARAN A
v.
BASANT KUMARI ~AIK AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 2, 1999

[M. SRINIVASAN AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.]
B
:a
>-

Limitation Act, 1963 : Sections 6, 8, 27 and 60.

Person under Disability-Limitation period for such a person-Com-
bined effect of Sections 6 and 8 read with third column of the appropriate c
article is that a person under disability may sue after cessation of disability
within the same period as would otherwise be allowed from the time specified
there[or in the third column of the schedule-But such extended period would
not be beyond three years from the date of the cessation of the disability.

Land purchased on 6.2.1953-Vendee (plaintiff) filed a suit of tresspass
D
in 1971 against the brother of vendor (appellant)-At the time of/sale the said
brother was a minor--High Court held on account of limitation the appellant
could not have filed any suit for recovery of possession and the plaintiff had
perfected title to the property by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation
Act-Appeal before this Court-Held in the present case the maximum period E
of limitation available to the appellant was only three years from the date of
his attaining majority, in other words, cessation of the disability-Consequent-
ly the right to file a suit of the appellant got expired at the end of three years
from the date of his attaining majority, whether it was 1963 or 1966-The view
taken by the High Court is co"ect. F

Darshan Singh & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh, [1994) 6 SCC 585, referred to.

Ka/uni Dei v. Kanhei Sahu & Ors., (1971) 37 Cuttack Law Times 178,
held inapplicable.
G
,,..
~-~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2595 of
1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.93 of the Orissa High
Court in S.A. No. 23 of 1984. H
345
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A J.P.,Mishra for C.S.S. Rao for the Appellant.

Mrs. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. -
The following Order of the co'urt was delivered :

B The only question in this case is whether the suit filed by the
respondents was barred by limitation. The relevant facts necessary for that l'.
.....
purpose are that the appellant herein was the legitimate son of one
Prahalad who in turn was son of Bagru Karan who was the owner of the
property. The said Bagru Karan died and was survived by his wife, son
Prahalad and daughter Pancha Dangen. Bagru Karan's widow executed a
c Will in favour of the daughter Pancha Dangen bequeathing the entire
property to her. The latter sold the property on 6.2.1953 to the first
plaintiff. The plaintiffs came into possession from that date. The suit was
filed by the plaintiffs against the present appellant alleging that he was an
illegitimate son of Prahalad, the son of Bagru Karan and that he had
D forcibly trespassed in the land in 1971. The Trial Court held that the
appellant was a legitimate son of Prahalad. The suit was dismissed on the x-
ground that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was void as the sale in
favour of the Vendor's mother was itself void. The Appellate Court con-
firmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. On
E Second Appeal the High Court remanded the matter for ascertaining the
date on which the appellant attained majority.

2. The Trial Court found that the appellant was born in the year 1945.
The Trial Court held that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff before the
expiration of 12 years from the date the appellant attained majority.
F
Consequently the plaintiff had not perfected title by adverse possession.

3. On Second Appeal the High Court has reversed the conclusions
by the Triai Court on the question of limitation and held that if the
appellant was born in 1945, he attained majority in 1966 on completion of
G 21 years and he could have instituted a suit for recovery of possession
within three years therefrom, i.e., 1969. The suit by the present plaintiff was ,_,
filed in 1971 which was beyond the said period of three years. Consequently
"""
the High Court held that the appellant could not have filed any suit for
recovery of possession and the ~Jaintiffs had perfected title to the property
H by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act. In the result the High Court
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A of the cessation of the disability. Consequently the right to file a suit of the .... 4

appellant got expired at the end of three years from the date of his attaining
majority, whether it was 1963 or 1966. In this case it is unnecessary for us
to consider whether the appellant attained majority ih 1966 on completion '
of 21 years or in 1963 on completion of 18 years as it is not relevant for
the purposes of this case. The plaintiffs, therefore, perfected their title by
B virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act.

7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Orissa
•....
High Court in Ke/uni Dei v. Kanhei Sahu & Ors., (1971) 37 Cuttack Law
Times 178. The judgment in that case does not contain any reasoning with
c regard to the question of limitation. The High Court has held that the suit
in that case was not barred by limitation. It is unnecessary for us to consider
that judgment in detail. Suffice it to say that the same will not help the
appellant in the present case.

8. The view taken by the High Court is correct. The appeal fails and
D is dismissed. No order as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed. .,,__