Article 69 of the limitation act will be applied from the time when the property is wrongfully taken : Andhra Pradesh High Court .

Can a plaintiff be entitled to the suit claim, and also can a suit be barred by limitation? Basically, the appellant files a complaint against the respondent seeking to get back his damaged 139 empty barrels or in alternative pay of  RS 19460/-  in this case, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE  M. VENKATA RAMAN, in the matter  SECOND APPEAL No. 684 of 2000, State of Andhra Pradesh, dealt with an issue mentioned above.

In this case, the appellant was appointed as an agent by the respondent itself by his letter dated 04.12.1981. Basically, the agent work was to distribute the palomino oil on behalf of the respondent covering Tenali and Emani Taluqs, Guntur District. When a shortage of 735 Kgs, of palomino oil, was found with 139 barrels containing oil out of 450. The appellant also claimed that the sub-agent Sir CH.V.S.Chalapathi Roa as sub-agent in his place and that he had over the aforesaid 139 barrels of oil to Sir Chalapathi Roa.

Appellant also claimed that he brings the owner of 139 barrels which he had purchased at Hyderabad for 140/- each. The respondent then resisted the claim by denying the relationship between him and the appellant as principal and agent respectively. Respondent mentioned that he had appointed agents by the aforestated corporation for proper distribution of oil to various fair price shop dealers.  

On the pleading, the trial court settled the following issues for trial;-

  • Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim?
  • Whether the suit is barred by limitations?
  • To what relief?

To establish a certain fact, the appellant relied on EX.A1 a letter dated 04.12.1981 of the respondent. it was mentioned has an ‘Appointment letter’. But the respondent stated that it was an authorisation letter and this contention was accepted by the learned appellate Judge contra to the findings of the learned trial judge that it was an out and out Appointment letter.

As mentioned above the appellant being an agent of the respondent at Tenali had no concern to A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation. It was also admitted and proved fact, so in such a situation there was so need for the Civil Supplies Corporation, to direct the respondent to return 139 empty barrels to the appellant, as seen from EX.A2. Also, the EX.B1 letter which was on the behalf of the respondent dated 26.07.1985 was also rejected.

In the end, the appellant failed to establish the suit transaction against the respondent and de’hors EX.A2, there is no other material for the appellant except his oral evidence. so the appellant came up with a specific plea of contract which stood out to be hopelessly barred by the time. Therefore, finding no reason to interfere invoking section 100 CPC, with the decree and judgement of the appellate court, the second appeal was also dismissed.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, “it was of the opinion that- the second appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and the judgment of the appellate Court confirming the dismissal of the suit. The appellant shall pay costs in this second appeal to the respondent and also as awarded”

Click here for judgment 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *