CHACKO Vs. PAILY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal raises an interesting question relating to limitation. The counts below have non-suited the appellant-plaintiff on the ground of limitation. The correctness of the view taken by those courts is challenged in the second appeal.

(2.) Some articles kept in the house of the plaintiff were stolen on 21-4-1972. The Perumbavoor Police registered a crime, investigated into it, and filed a charge before the Magistrate Court. The police recovered the articles from the house of the defendant, who was the brother-in-law of the 2nd accused in the criminal case. That was on 3-5-1972. Ultimately the criminal case ended in an acquittal. The defendant herein gave evidence in the criminal case and claimed that the articles belonged to him. The articles in question were directed to be returned to the defendant, after the criminal court took evidence relating to the disposal of the property. That order was challenged before the Sessions Court and ultimately before this Court. This court observed that the ownership regarding the article should be decided through a civil court. That was on 29-1-1976. The suit was filed on 14-2-1976.

(3.) The question of limitation raised as a preliminary issue was considered as such, and as noted earlier, decided against the plaintiff. The trial court took the view that Article 68 of the Limitation Act. 1963 applied, and that "at least on 3-5-1972 the plaintiff must be taken to have first learnt as to in whose possession the plaint schedule articles were." The suit obviously was beyond three years from 3-5-1972. Consequently it entailed a dismissal before that court. A contention that the cause of action arose only from 29-1-1976, the date of disposal of the revision petition by the High Court in relation to the disposal of property matter, was then considered. The certified copy of the order of the High Court had not been produced before that court. The court therefore observed :