Kerala High Court
X vs Y on 16 July, 2010
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 419 of 1995()
1. X
... Petitioner
Vs
1. Y
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
A.S.No.419 OF 1995
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant. It was the registered owner of a vehicle. It leased the vehicle to the defendants under a hire purchase agreement. The defendants are the hirers and the plaintiff, the registered owner of the vehicle. The court below dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. It found under issue No.5 that as per Exts.A5 and A6, the total rent amount is repayable in 60 monthly instalments in the manner stated in Ext.A6. After payment of instalment No.7 and a part payment of instalment No.8, the defendants did not remit any further instalment in terms of Ext.A6. The last instalment fell due on 6.8.1989. The suit was filed on 29.10.1992, evidently three years after AS.419/95 2 the payment of the last instalment. The court below held that the suit was barred by limitation.
2.Reiterating the contentions of the plaintiff before the court below on the question of limitation, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of the court below that the suit is barred by limitation does not stand and it should be taken as a case where the plaintiff was suing for recovery of damages in respect of breach of contract as regards machineries given on hire. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the transaction would fall under Article 52 in the First Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
3.Ext.A5 is a lease agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendants. The repayment chart issued by the plaintiff to the first defendant is Ext.A6. The plaintiff continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle. There was no parting of AS.419/95 3 the title to the said immovable property, viz., the vehicle, by the plaintiff to the defendants at any point of time. Obviously therefore, it would be a case of lease. The said finding of the trial court stands. If that were so, the last instalment in terms of Ext.A6 was indisputably due on 6.8.1989. The suit filed on 29.10.1992 would be barred having been filed beyond three years. Hire charges or rental in terms of Exts.A5 and A6 become payable on the basis of instalments fixed as per Ext.A6. That reflects the time schedule for payment of hire charges. The hire charges was for a vehicle. Therefore, it is Article 12 of the First Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act that applies. It is neither Article 52 nor 113 as noted by the court below. However, the period of limitation is three years and it begins to run when the hire charges became payable. As rightly pointed out by the court below, even the last instalment of the hire charges had fallen due on 6.8.1989. The suit instituted on 29.10.1992 was, therefore, clearly barred.
AS.419/95 4 In the result, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the totality of the facts, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge.
kkb.17/07.