Court Rules on Limitation Period for Property Delivery in Kerala

Kerala High Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Property Delivery Applications

Kerala High Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Property Delivery Applications

A significant legal judgment from the High Court of Kerala was delivered by the Honourable Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and the Honourable Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar on March 19, 2024. This case revolves around the execution of a compromise decree related to the realization of gold and patrimony, initially settled in the Family Court of Thodupuzha.

Case Background

The petitioner, a decree holder, purchased a property from the judgment debtor via a court-ordered sale in 2017. Following the sale, the judgment debtor attempted to annul the sale through multiple applications under various provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), including Order XXI Rule 90 and Order XXI Rule 95. The primary issue before the court was whether the application for property delivery, filed after the confirmation of the sale, was within the permissible limitation period as stipulated by Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Key Legal Provisions and Arguments

The core legal provisions in question were:

  • Order XXI Rule 90 CPC: Pertains to setting aside sales on the grounds of irregularities.
  • Order XXI Rule 95 CPC: Relates to the procedure for the delivery of property sold in execution of a decree.
  • Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Sets a one-year limitation period for applications for delivery of possession from the date of the sale becoming absolute.

The judgment debtor argued that the application for delivery filed by the petitioner was barred by the limitation period, as it was filed after more than one year from the date of sale confirmation. Conversely, the petitioner contended that the limitation period should commence from the date when all ancillary proceedings, including attempts to annul the sale, were resolved.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The High Court of Kerala leaned towards the precedent set in United Finance Corporation, which was further reinforced by a Full Bench decision in Danish Varghese v. Jancy Danish (2021). It ruled that the limitation period under Article 134 starts after the conclusion of all ancillary proceedings.

Therefore, considering that all related proceedings were resolved on May 22, 2019, the petitioner’s application for property delivery filed on October 11, 2019, was within the permissible period.

Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, overturning the Family Court’s order that dismissed the application for being time-barred. This judgment underscores the importance of considering ancillary proceedings in determining the start of the limitation period for execution applications under the Limitation Act.

Download Judgment

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top