Limitation actFraudSupreme Court of India

A.V. Papayya Sastry v Government of Andhra Pradesh

(2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 22120071 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff's cause of action was concealed through fraudulent acts of the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit after the apparent limitation period. The plaintiff invoked Section 17, arguing limitation should run from discovery of fraud.
Issue
Whether active concealment by the defendant triggers fresh limitation under Section 17.
Held
Section 17 applies where the right to sue is concealed by fraud.
Principle
Fraud under Section 17 of the Limitation Act includes active concealment by the defendant. Where the right to sue was concealed by fraud, limitation does not run until the plaintiff discovered or ought to have discovered the fraud.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiff's cause of action was concealed through fraudulent acts of the defendant
  • The plaintiff filed suit after the apparent limitation period
  • The plaintiff invoked Section 17, arguing limitation should run from discovery of fraud

Issue

  1. Whether active concealment by the defendant triggers fresh limitation under Section 17.

Held

  • Section 17 applies where the right to sue is concealed by fraud
  • Fraud includes active concealment deliberately hiding facts
  • Limitation period starts from the date of discovery (or when it ought to have been discovered with reasonable diligence)
  • This is a fresh accrual, not a mere extension
  • The defendant who conceals cannot benefit from limitation running during concealment

Ratio decidendi

S.17 fraud includes active concealment. Fresh limitation runs from discovery. The fraudulent concealer cannot benefit from time running during the concealment.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

- Key line: "In A.V. Papayya Sastry (2007), the Supreme Court held that S.17 fraud includes active concealment. Limitation runs fresh from discovery of the fraud."

Cite this

Citation

A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221

Reported: (2007) 4 SCC 221; verified via standard references. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.