S I KAMRUDDIN SHAH Vs. M R UMAKANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit for recovery of unpaid purchase money was decreed by the trial Court and the decree is resisted and challenged in this revision by the defendant-purchaser, which is at Ex. P. 2. Ex. P. 2 reads as follows:

(2.) HEARD the Counsel. On the question of limitation, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the dictum of this Court in thomas alias Gibba D'sa v. John D'sa, are as follows:

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Shastri, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the possession was really taken in 1989. There was evidence given by the petitioner herein the defendants, remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Consequently, the suit filed in 1989 is in time. This decision do not apply.