Venkappa Gurappa Hosur Vs. Kasawwa C/o Rangappa Kulgod
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2837 of 1986
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.1984 of the Karnataka High Court in R.S.A.No. 646 of 1976)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.1984 of the Karnataka High Court in R.S.A.No. 646 of 1976)
Petitioner: Venkappa Gurappa Hosur
Respondent: Kasawwa C/o Rangappa Kulgod
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2837 of 1986
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.1984 of the Karnataka High Court in R.S.A.No. 646 of 1976)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.1984 of the Karnataka High Court in R.S.A.No. 646 of 1976)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & D.P.WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 03, 1997
Appearances:
Mr.Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate for Mr. A.S. Bhasme, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. P.R.Ramasesh, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
LIMITATION ACT, 1963
Schedule Article 54 – Held suit filed after expiry of 3 years from the date of knowledge of denial is hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 54 – Mere issue of notice in 1972 does not stop running of limitation once it has began to run – High Court justified in dismissing suit.
Schedule Article 54 – Held suit filed after expiry of 3 years from the date of knowledge of denial is hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 54 – Mere issue of notice in 1972 does not stop running of limitation once it has began to run – High Court justified in dismissing suit.
Held:
It is, therefore, clear from Suit No.9/60 itself 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 date 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. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. 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.
2. 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 itself 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 date 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.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. 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.
2. 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 itself 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 date 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.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
