T VENKAT REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADE to a person by Government on 10-5-1963 Demands for Deduction MADE on 7-2-1964 Suit filed by Government on 4-4-1974 for delivery of goods Not barred by limitation. Held : Clearly if it is a case that the suit is to be filed by a private citizen, the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 70 of Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 is three years. The limitation begins to run from the date of demand. Demand was on August 7,1964. If it were to be a suit filed by a private citizen, the suit is clearly barred by time. The Legislature extended limitation of 30 years period to the Government under Art. 112 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. Therefore, clearly the suit is within limitation, from August 7, 1964. Second Appeal under section 100 CPC ,- gainst the decree of the District Court, Medak at Sangareddy in A.S. No. 40 of 1977 preferred against the decree of the court cf the District Munsif, Siddipet in O.S.No. 41 of 1974. Mr. B.G. Paropkari Advocatefor Appellant.________ The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. The Government filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2000/- from the apsllant on the ground that 212 bags of beedi leaves were entrusted to the appellant, the Sarpanch, for safe custody and on demand he did not deliver the same on August 7, 1964, and that therefore he is liable to pay the value thereof, the value being Rs. 2.000/-. The appellant resisted the suits. The trial court held that the entrustment was proved and the value of the bags was Rs. 2,000/-. But the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the claim is barred by limitation, in view of Article 70 of Schedule of the Limitation Act, which prescribes three years period from the date of entrustment. Againit this, the Government filed an appeal. The appellant also filed cross-objections. Both the appeal and the Cross-objections were heard together arid the appellaate court held that the value of the 212 bags of beedi leaves has Rs. 2000/-, that the said bags were entrusted to the appellant and that the suit is within limitation. Therefore, this Second appeal. Sri B.G. Paropkari, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act, the contents of the document are to be proved by Panch Witnesses. In this case that was not done. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. Both the courts below considered the evidence and found that the entrustments was proved and the value of 212 beedi leaves bags was Rs. 2000/-. These are the findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether the suit is barred by Limitation ? The goods were entrusted to the appellant on May 10, 1963. Demand was MADE for production on August 7,1964. But was not produced. The suit was filed on April 4, 1974. Clearly if it is a case that the suit is to be filed by a private citizen, the period of limitation prescribed under Article 70 of Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 is three years. The period of limitation begins to run from the date of demand. Demand was MADE on August 7, 1964. If it were to be a suit filed by a private citizen, the suit is clearly barred by time. The legislature contended limitation of 30 years period to the Government under Article 112 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. Therefore, clearly ike suit is within limitation from August 7,1964. The trial court misconstrued the provisions of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 and dismissed the suit. The appellate court rightly considered this fact and held that the suit is within limitation and decreed the suit. Accordingly I hold that the relevant Article that would be applicable is Article 112 of Schedule to the Limitation Act and the suit was filed within limitation. Accordingly the Second Appeal dismissed with costs.