PRABHAPPA S/O MANAPPA BADIGER Vs. IRAPPA S/O BASAVANNEPPA NERTHI, SHIVAPPA S/O BASAVANNEPPA NERTHI AND SMT. SHANTAVVA, W/O BASAPPA THAMMANNANAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Perused the judgments of the two Courts below. This second appeal is by the plaintiff. The trial Court had partly decreed the suit by directing defendant nos 1 and 2 to refund the earnest amount of Rs. 9,100/ -. On separate appeals by defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. As could be seen from para No. 14 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff was aware as on 29.01.1996, that the defendants were not willing to execute the Sale Deed pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 03.08.1982. The suit was filed in the year 2001 which is obviously beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that two years' time was fixed for execution of the sale deed under a subsequent understanding as per Ex. P. 2 dated 27.01.1995. Even assuming it to be so, the suit was not filed within three years from expiry of two years from 27.01.1995. Viewed from any angle, the suit was barred by limitation.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the appeals relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Kaur and Others Vs. Sheo Lal Kapoor, AIR 1988 SC 1074 and a judgment of this Court in Sri Somanagouda Vs. Sri Shamshiddin ( 2012 (3) KCCR 2146). In the light of the facts stated above, both judgments will in no way advance the case of the appellant. I find no legal infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for determination in these appeals. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeals, I. A. No. 2/2008 filed in R.S.A No. 905/2008 also stands dismissed.