P K KUTTYANUJA RAJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 of January 1, 1968 when the High 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.18,069.75 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 in 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. 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 interdicted by an order of the Court. S.3 of the Limitation Act gives a power of entertaining the suit which says that: