Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: limitation act article 109 in Sri Rajashekar vs Sri Nagaraju on 18 March, 2026Matching Fragments
9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in GANAPATI SANTARAM BHOSALE AND ANOTHER vs. RAMACHANDRA SUBBARAO KULKARNI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1985 KARNATAKA
143. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that this Court discussed with regard to suit filed for setting aside alienation made by guardian of property of minor and also discussed Article 60 and Article 109 of Limitation Act i.e., alienation by karta or guardian is of joint family property and not property of minor. Hence, suit for setting aside such alienation is governed by Article 109 and not Article 60. The counsel referring these judgments would vehemently contend that the suit is in time, but the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.
19. Now, this Court has to, in considering the grounds which have been urged in the present appeal and also the substantial questions of law has to take note of Section 6 and also Articles 60 and 109 of the Limitation Act.
20. This Court would like to extract Articles 60, 109, 110 and 113 of the Limitation Act which is extracted in the judgment of the Apex Court in NARAYAN vs. BABASAHEB AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 6 SCC 725 in Paragraph No.17 which reads as hereunder:
24. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, it is very clear that suit should be filed within 3 years after attaining the majority under Article 60 of the Limitation Act.
25. Even considering Article 109 of the Limitation Act, it is very clear that if any property by Hindu governed by Mitakshara law to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property filed within twelve years from the date of alienee took possession of property and the period of limitation starts to begin when the alienee takes possession of the property. In the case on hand, possession was delivered on 11.08.1995 itself and the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit within 12 years. But, this suit is filed after more than 13 years. Hence, the very contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants cannot be accepted.
29. In paragraph No.13, this Court also discussed that plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the Sale Deed is not binding on her interest in the suit property and this relief is similar to setting aside the sale, which is contemplated under Article 60 of the Limitation Act and in the absence of the said relief, the suit itself cannot be maintained. Hence, reversed the judgment.
30. Having analyzed Articles 60, 109 and also Section 6 of the Limitation Act and considering the material available on record, it is not in dispute that sale was made on 11.08.1995 and suit was filed on 15.04.2008 after 12 years from the date of alienation as per Section 109 of the Limitation Act. Here is a case where challenge is made by the minors and Article 60 of the Limitation Act is very clear that suit should be filed within 3 years from the date of attaining majority and the same is not within the prescribed limit either under Article 60 or Article 109 of the Limitation Act. The principles laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court both in K. C. LAKSHMAN's case and also in NARAYAN's case is very clear that suit ought to have been filed within the prescribed limit. The Apex Court held that Article 60 is applicable to suit by quondam minor to set aside alienation of his property by his guardian and limitation period of three years will start from the date of minor attaining majority. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that both the Courts have taken note of Section 6 and Articles 60 and 109 and particularly, taken note of document Ex.P1 which is an undisputed document and the same is signed and got marked by the plaintiffs themselves, wherein it is stated that the age of plaintiff No.1 is 23 years and age of the plaintiff No.2 is 27 years and the suit is not filed within 3 years of attaining majority. Hence, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and the same is not filed within the prescribed time limit of 3 years.