STATE OF KERALA Vs. THALAYAR TEA COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is the appellant. THE only contention which has been urged before us by the Advocate General is as regards limitation. THE question is which is the Article of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, that governs the tacts of this case: is it Art. 24 or Art. 113. THE State contends that the applicable provision is Art 24 and that the court below has wrongly applied Art. 113.

(2.) THE respondent-plaintiff, THE Thalayar Tea Co. Ltd. , succeeded to the interests of the Talliar Coffee Estates, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'coffee company') by virtue of a scheme of amalgamation entered into between the two companies and sanctioned by order of the High court of judicature at Madras in C. P. No. 25/1971. THE coffee company had on 1-7-1966 instituted O. S. No. 70/1966 in the Sub Court , Kottayam. THE question which arose in that suit was whether seigniorage was payable in respect of the silver oak trees cut and removed from its (1st plaintiffs) property and sold to plaintiffs 2 and 3. It was contended by the coffee company that silver oak trees were the absolute property of the company and that no seigniorage was payable in respect of those trees cut and removed from its property. That suit was dismissed on 30-6-1967. However, the coffee company's appeal (A. S. No. 326/67) was allowed by this Court on 25-11-1970. THE position therefore was that between 30-6-1967, when the suit was dismissed, and 25-11-1970, when the appeal was allowed, the coffee company was held to be liable in respect of seigniorage of silver oak trees cut and removed from its property. But the position changed with the decision of this Court on 25-11-1970. No seigniorage was declared to be payable by the company in respect of silver oak trees cut and removed from its property.

(3.) IN answer to the plaint allegations various contentions on the merits were raised by the State in its written statement. The Court below however held that the State was barred by reason of resjudicata from reagita-ting the questions already decided by the judgment in A. S. No. 326 of 1967. The court further found that the suit was not barred by limitation as art. 113 applied to the case. It is this finding on limitation which now arises for our consideration as that is the only point which the Advocate General has urged in bis arguments. According to him Art 113, which is a residuary provision, has no application as Art 24 specifically applies to this case.