-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
"Law of Limitation Must Be Applied With Full Rigour When Negligence Is Evident; Mere Ignorance Despite Public Notice Is No Justification", Madhya Pradesh High Court upholding the dismissal of a suit involving the ownership and sale of land belonging to a religious Math. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai ruled that the appeal was time-barred, and that the appellant, who was not a party to the original suit, lacked locus standi and had failed to establish “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court reiterated that procedural equity cannot override statutory mandates, especially when delay is prolonged and unexplained.
Religious Endowment's Claim on Sold Math Property Fails in Trial and First Appellate Court
The litigation arose from a suit filed in 2011 by the plaintiffs claiming ownership, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession of properties allegedly belonging to the historic Shri Badamath, established about 150 years ago in Sitamau. The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, Deepakgiri, was wrongfully recorded as Mahant in revenue records while still a minor, and that he had illegally sold portions of Math property to third parties.
They contended that Deepakgiri, being married and a practicing advocate, was unfit to act as Mahant, and that he had alienated sacred trust property for personal gain. The suit sought declaration of ownership in favour of the Math and invalidation of the 2010 sale deeds.
The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the Math was a private family religious institution, not a public trust, and that Defendant No. 1 was lawfully appointed as Mahant through adoption and recognized succession. It held that the property was rightly sold by the Mahant as personal property, not as part of a charitable endowment.
A first appeal was filed nearly three years later, which the Appellate Court dismissed on the ground of limitation, rejecting the appellant's explanation that they only came to know of the judgment in 2020. The matter then reached the High Court by way of second appeal.
Limitation, Locus Standi, and Appellate Standing of a Non-Party
The High Court was called upon to consider:
The appellant contended that the Math was a public trust, and that Deepakgiri's actions were in derogation of that status. It was claimed that they had no knowledge of the trial court judgment and only discovered the sale and division of land in 2020. They also argued for a liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” to allow the case to be heard on merits.
“The Law Assists the Vigilant, Not the Indolent”
Justice Pillai, after an extensive analysis of precedent, firmly held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, stating:
“The delay of nearly two years and ten months in filing the appeal was unexplained, and the reasons presented were not considered genuine… Judicial precedent confirms that unexplained delays should not be condoned.” [Para 16]
Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649] and Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81], the High Court emphasized that sufficient cause must be “real, substantial, and backed by evidence”, and that a liberal approach cannot excuse gross negligence.
“It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.” [Para 14]
The Court noted that public notice of the suit was published back in 2011, and that the appellant had ample opportunity to join proceedings but chose not to. The appeal was filed in December 2020, nearly three years after the trial court judgment of 30 January 2018, and far beyond the 30-day limitation period.
“A Person Aggrieved Must Show Actual Prejudice, Not Imaginary Injury”
The High Court also decisively ruled that the appellant had no locus standi, as he was not a party to the original suit, nor had he obtained leave to appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in V.N. Krishna Murthy v. Ravikumar [(2020) 9 SCC 501], Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties [(1970) 3 SCC 573], and others, the Court held:
“It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court.” [Para 17]
Further, quoting from Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma [(2003) 1 SCC 34]:
“A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned.” [Para 17]
The Court found no evidence that the appellant was prejudicially affected or bound by the decree, and rejected the contention of conspiracy between plaintiffs and defendants, noting that such allegations were unsubstantiated and speculative.
“Mere sentimental or imagined grievance is not sufficient to sustain appeal… No evidence has been produced to support the claims, nor has any grave error in the Trial Court’s judgment been shown.” [Para 20]
Property Law Clarified: Personal vs. Public Nature of Religious Endowment
The core factual issue—whether Shri Badamath was a public trust or private hereditary Math—was settled by concurrent findings of both lower courts. The trial court found, based on adoption deeds, succession certificates, revenue records, and government documentation, that the Mahant acted within his authority as owner of private property.
The High Court upheld this view, observing that:
“The Trial Court rightly held Defendant to be lawful Mahant with ownership as per family tradition and documents – Sale of land found valid – No procedural irregularity shown.” [Headnote]
The appellant, the Court concluded, had failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or substantial question of law as required for a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
High Court Upholds Lower Court Rulings, Dismisses Appeal with Stern Observations
Dismissing the second appeal, the High Court reaffirmed the importance of procedural discipline, holding that:
“No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever… Law of limitation, even if harsh, must be enforced when prescribed by statute.” [Para 14]
It also clarified that persons not party to a suit cannot appeal without proving real and legal injury, reiterating the elastic but bounded definition of "aggrieved person".
The appeal was dismissed as both time-barred and without merit, with all pending applications disposed of.
Date of Decision: 18 November 2025
