IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 582 of 1995(C) --------------------- OS.87/1992 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------- M/S.SAKTHI FINANCE LTD. NO.475, DR.NANJAPPA ROAD, COIMBATORE, BRANCH AT ERNAKULAM, BEING REPRESENTED BY MANAGER (RECOVERIES) P.K.KRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------- 1. M/S.PRINCY TRAVELS, NEAR NORTH OVER BRIDGE, KOCHI -16. 2. MR.E.X.THOMAS ALIAS BABY, MANAGING PARTNER M/S.PRINCY TRAVELS, KOCHI -18. 3. A.R.GOPI, S/O.RAVANNI PILLAI, ARAKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, EDA KOCHI, KOCHI -6. ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS, SMT.SIMLA.T.C. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.4341 OF 1995 IN A.S.NO.582 OF 1995 //DISMISSED// 16.07.2010. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- A.S.No.582 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 Nos.1 to 3 that as per Exts.A28, the total rent amount is repayable in 60 monthly instalments in the manner stated in Ext.A11. After payment of instalment No.6 and a part payment of instalment No.7, the defendants did not remit any further instalment in terms of Ext.A11. Though the last instalment fell due only on 14.8.1989, the plaintiff took custody of the vehicle on 11.2.1988. Therefore, the contract stood rescinded by the AS.582/95 2 plaintiff on that day. The suit was filed on 19.12.1991, evidently three years after the repossession of the vehicle by the plaintiff. 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.A28 is a lease agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendants. The repayment chart issued by the plaintiff AS.582/95 3 to the first defendant is Ext.A11. The plaintiff continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle. There was no parting of 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, though the last instalment in terms of Ext.A11 was indisputably due on 14.8.1989, the plaintiff took custody of the vehicle on 11.2.1988. The suit filed on 29.10.1992 would be barred having been filed beyond three years from the date of re- possession of the vehicle. Hire charges or rental in terms of Exts.A29 and A11 become payable on the basis of instalments fixed as per Ext.A11. 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, in this case, to run AS.582/95 4 when the entire hire charges became payable on 11.2.1988, the date of re-possession of the vehicle on the rescission of the contract by the plaintiff following the breach by the defendant hirer. The suit instituted on 19.12.1991 was, therefore, clearly barred. 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.