AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img








Venkappa Gurappa Hosur Vs. Kasawwa C/o Rangappa Kulgod [1997] INSC 384 (3 April 1997)

K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

Present:

Hon'ble Mr.Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.P. Wadhwa (Manoj Kumar Mishra) Adv. for A.S. Bhasme, Adv for the appellant P.R. Ramasesh, Adv. for the Respondent O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, made on July 30, 1984 in Second Appeal No.646 of 1976.

The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated August 9, 1959 in respect of the land in Village Linganur for a consideration of Rs.10,200/-.

It is the case of the appellant that he paid as part consideration a sum of Rs. 501/- on the said date and a further sum of Rs.700/- on March 4, 1960. In the meanwhile, the defendant filed suit No.9/60 for possession of the said properties. The suit was decided in his favour on November 9, 1971. The appellant, therefore, issued notice for the first time on August 22, 1972. Thereon, the respondent denied execution of agreement. Then the appellant filed the suit on November 5, 1972. Thus, according to the plaintiff the suit was filed within limitation. The respondent has denied the execution of the agreement of sale, but the courts below have found that it is one of money transaction.

It is, therefore, clear from Suit No.9/60 it self that he had asserted to be the owner of the property and the property is unencumbered property. Therefore, no one has a right to interfere with his possession. Thus, it could be seen that the suit document itself was denied as early as in 1960. As a consequence, mere issuance of notice dated August 22, 1972 does not stop the running of limitation period.

Once the same has began to run, it runs its full course.

Therefore, the suit having been filed after the expiry of 3 years from the dated of the knowledge of denial, by operation of Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The High Court, therefore, is right in dismissing the suit in the second appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys