In Brief
A plaintiff claimed compensation for a road constructed on his land and damage to fruit trees in 1987, but filed suit only in 2003. The plaintiff's own witnesses admitted the construction occurred in 1987 with his consent, and he never complained until 2002. Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court held the suit barred by limitation. The High Court allowed the plaintiff's Second Appeal without addressing limitation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that concurrent findings of fact on limitation cannot be disturbed without framing a substantial question of law, and the sixteen-year delay corroborated the Trial Court's finding that the suit was time-barred.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.