PARVATHAMMA Vs. K R LOKANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal by the defendant is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30th may, 1991 passed by the learned x add!. City civil and sessions judge, Bangalore city in O.S. No. 1877/1980 (original number O.S. 753/1977).

(2.) the plaintiffs are the heirs of ramabhadraiah setty. First plaintiff is the adopted son, second plaintiff is the widow and third plaintiff is the daughter. Second defendant is also another daughter of late ramabhadriah setty. The plaintiffs have sought for possession of the suit schedule property. First defendant claims to have been in possession of the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 21-10-1965-ex. P-5. The suit has been filed on 15-10-1977.

(3.) before the trial court one of the major issues contested by the parties was as to whether the relief of specific performance was barred by time? 3.1. The trial court on considering the evidence on record has held that limitation, under Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, commenced on 28-8-1972 when the first defendant filed O.S. No. 2102/1972 for a permanent injunction against the present plaintiffs 2 and 3; that as the specific performance is sought by way of counter claim made in the written statement filed on 10-7-1978, the relief of specific performance must be deemed to have been sought on 10-7-1978 hence, the relief is barred by time because it is made beyond the period of three years from 28-8-1972.