CHAKKY RUDRANI Vs. VELAYUDHAN KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 121 of 1981 of the Principal Sub Court, Alleppey. She filed the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement. Defendant (respondent) denied the agreement. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence upheld the case of the plaintiff with regard to the oral agreement and decreed the suit. Defendant filed A.S.36 of 1986 before the District Court, Alleppey. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings of the Sub Judge with regard to the oral agreement set up by the plaintiff in the suit. But the learned District Judge finding that the suit is barred by limitation dismissed it.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that on 7.11.1972 the defendant entered into a contract with her to sell the suit property for Rs. 7,000/- and received the amount from her on the same day agreeing to execute the sale deed as soon as he received back the document of the property after clearing off certain liability due to a bank. Plaintiff's case is that she was given possession of the property on 7.11.1972 itself and that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the defendant failed to perform his part. Defendant filed written statement stating that there was no agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff. According to the defendant on 7.11.1972 on receipt of Rs. 7,000/- from the plaintiff the property was given in possession to her for enjoyment of the same. Learned District Judge has agreed with the findings of the trial Court upholding the agreement of sale as alleged by the plaintiff and that the property was given to her as part performance of the contract.

(3.) Contention of the plaintiff is that the District Judge went wrong in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Counsel pointed out that the averments in the plaint would really show that plaintiff became aware of the refusal on the part of the defendant in performing his part of the contract only on 20.6.1980 and therefore the period of limitation starts from that date and not at any time prior to that. In the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff came to know on 20.6.1980 that the liability to the Bank was learned and that the defendant had received back the document.