Kerala High Court
V.Chandran vs Aliamma George on 27 October, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:79909
C. R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
RFA NO. 79 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2012 IN OS NO.498 OF 2006 OF
I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-----
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
V.CHANDRAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVAN, VADAKKUMKARA VEEDU, UDAYAKONAM, MADIRA
MURI, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN
SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN
SRI.T.SAPROO
SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 3:
1 ALIAMMA GEORGE
W/O.K.V.GEORGE, KARIMPIL BUILDING, KOTTAYKKAKAM,
VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695551.
2 GEORGE VARGHESE
S/O.K.V.GEORGE, KARIMPIL BUILDING, KOTTAYKKAKAM,
VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695551.
3 GEORGE KURIAN
S/O.K.V.GEORGE, KARIMPIL BUILDING, KOTTAYKKAKAM,
VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695551.
2025:KER:79909
RFA NO. 79 OF 2013 -2-
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.C.SINY
SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
SHRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL
SHRI.T.S.RAJASENAN
SHRI.R.SUDHEER
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:79909
C. R.
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A. No.79 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for damages for breach of a contract was dismissed
by the trial court. The plaintiff is in appeal.
2. The plaintiff is a timber merchant. On 06.08.1998, he
entered into Ext.A1 agreement with the defendants to cut and
remove trees standing in the plaint schedule property belonging
to the defendants. The total consideration fixed was ₹ 25 lakhs.
It was a term of Ext.A1 that the defendants were to obtain passes
from the Forest Department to enable the removal of the trees.
The claim of the labourers of the estate were also to be settled
by the defendants. The plaintiff constructed a motorable road
through the property for a length of 25 kilometres and expended
huge amounts for the same. This was in addition to the amount
expended for construction of stacking shed, arranging labourers
etc. The period of the agreement was for one year from
01.09.1998. According to the plaintiff, since the defendant
2025:KER:79909
failed to procure the necessary passes, the agreement was further
extended till 03.04.2001. The plaintiff alleges that on the
failure of the defendants to obtain passes, the plaintiff was
unable to remove the trees in its entirety. The plaintiff has
thus suffered damages under various heads. Thus suit was filed
for realisation of the same.
3. The defendants, while admitting Ext.A1 agreement,
contended that Ext.A1 agreement had been performed in its
entirety and that on such completion, on 01.10.2000, yet another
agreement was entered into between the parties as Ext.B4 for
removal of the trees in yet another property belonging to the
defendants. They alleged suppression of such fact by the
plaintiff. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The trial court found that Ext.A1 agreement has been
performed. It was also found that the suit is barred by
limitation.
5. We have heard Smt.Hemalatha, the learned counsel on
behalf of the appellant and Sri. R. Sudhir, the learned counsel
for the respondents.
2025:KER:79909
6. The points that arise for determination are :-
(i) Is the plaint claim barred by limitation?
(ii) Has there been breach of Ext.A1 agreement by the defendants ?
7. Ext.A1 agreement is dated 06.08.1998. Under Ext.A1, the
period fixed for performance was one year from 01.09.1998. The
said period expired on 01.09.1999. The plaintiff claims that on
03.10.2000 the agreement was extended for a further period of six
months ie. up to 03.04.2001. Alleging breach on the part of the
defendants, the suit has been filed. The suit is filed only on
18.01.2005.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff would
contend that, the defendants failed to obtain passes from the
Forest Department, that the breach is a continuous one, and hence
the suit cannot be said to be time barred. We are unable to agree
with the contention. Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads
thus:
Art. Description of suit Period of Time from which period
limitation begins to run
55 For compensation for the breach Three years When the contract is broken or (where
of any contract, express or there are successive breaches) when the
implied not herein specifically breach in respect of which the suit is
provided for. instituted occurs or (where the breach
is continuing) when it ceases.
2025:KER:79909
Article 55 contemplates three situations; one, when the contract
is breached; second, when there are successive breaches; and the
third, when the breach is a continuing one. When the breach is a
continuing one, limitation begins to run from the date on which
the breach ceases.
9. Section 22 of the Limitation Act deals with "continuing
breaches". It reads thus,
"S.22. Continuing breaches and torts-
In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a
fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which
the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues."
In the case of continuing breach, every moment the breach
continues, a fresh period of limitation commences. Article 55
provides that in the case of breach of a contract, when the
breach is continuous, limitation begins to run from the date of
cessation of the breach. When does the breach cease in the given
case, is dealt with in the succeeding paragraph.
10. When the term of Ext.A1 agreement obliging the
defendants to obtain passes from the Forest Department is
breached by them, there occurs a breach of the contract. That
2025:KER:79909
breach continues during the period fixed in the contract. On
expiry of the period of the contract, the breach ceases. The
breach was a continuing one, but, during the currency of the
contract. The breach cannot be said to continue thereafter since,
the period fixed by the parties have expired. A suit could be
maintained within three years from the date of expiry, claiming
the total damages consequent on the breach committed by the
defendants.
11. As was noticed, Ext.A1 agreement specified the period
for performance as one year which expired in the year 1999. The
plaintiff claims that the agreement has been extended till
03.04.2001. The alleged extension is disputed by the defendants.
Even taking it to be that there had been such an extension, it
was only for a specified period ie. up to 03.04.2001. There would
have been continuous breaches within the period of the agreement.
For breaches within the period stipulated, the plaintiff could
have waited till the expiry of the period. But, once the period
of the agreement expired, the time started to run. The plaintiff
was obliged to institute the suit within three years therefrom.
Having failed to do so, the present suit is barred by limitation.
2025:KER:79909
The trial court was right in having held so.
12. Having found that the suit is barred by limitation, the
other questions does not arise for consideration.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
