Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
S. Brahmanand And Ors vs K. R. Muthugopal (D) And Ors on 21 October, 2005
Showing the contexts in which article 54 of limitation act appears in the document
Change context size

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable and since the Plaintiffs notice of the refusal of performance by the Defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31.8.95/ 1.9.1995, the suit filed on 15.9.1995 was within limitation. On this finding, the learned judge of the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for, since the learned judge was satisfied that the Plaintiffs were willing to perform their part of the agreement and the defendants were not.

show the true common intention of the parties, which was that the date of performance was extended until the difficulty created by Moosakutty's appeal and the injunction therein was resolved and that "it is advisable to wait for things to be more clear". He, therefore, contends that this letter would suggest that whatever the parties might have originally intended, after the letter of 18.6.1992 the time had been extended. That even if clause (1) of the agreement alone must be looked at, vacating an injunction is not a certain event, and, therefore, the first part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply.

Mr. Rao, learned counsel, who appeared for Respondents 3 and 4 (the Bhatt family) contends that the expressions "date" and "time" used in the Schedule to the Limitation Act are interchangeable; the maxim id certum est quod certum reddi potest ('That is certain which can be reduced to a certainty.') clearly applies to a situation like this; the expression "date" is interchangeable with "day" or "time". He relied on a series of judgments, including two judgments of this Court, in support of his contention. He also refuted the argument that there was any ambiguity in interpreting the language used in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963; that the High Court had on a careful reading of the agreement ascertained the intention of the parties, and there

P. Sivan Muthiah and Ors. v. John Sathiavasagam arose from a suit for specific performance with an alternative prayer for recovery of advance paid under the agreement of sale. Referring to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the court took the view that the expression "date fixed" could mean either the date expressly fixed or the date that can be fixed with reference to a future event, which is certain to happen. If the date is to be ascertained depending upon an event which is not certain to happen, the first part of Article 54 would not be applicable, and in such an eventuality, it is only the latter part of Article 54 that could be invoked by treating it as a case in which no date had been fixed for performance and the limitation would be three years from the date when the plaintiff had notice that performance is refused. This was a case where performance was due after the tenants in the property had been vacated. The court took the view that since eviction of the tenants was an uncertain event, the time