SANGAM ANANTHARAVAMMA Vs. PEESAPATI AMARAVATHANULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. They are legal heirs of one Pedda Hanumareddy, who obtained Ex.B1 agreement for sale dated 05.06.1977 from the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule land. The rate of land was fixed at Rs.5,515/- per acre and total sale consideration was arrived at Rs.19,302.60ps.

(2.) On the date of agreement, Hanumareddy paid earnest money or advance sale consideration of Rs.8,000/- to the plaintiff, undertaking to pay balance of consideration with interest at 12% per annum by 04.06.1978. On 22.06.1977, Hanumareddy paid another sum of Rs.2000/- under Ex.B3 endorsement on the back of the agreement. Subsequent to the due date of 04.06.1978, Hanumareddy paid another sum of Rs.1,000/- on 11.07.1978 under Ex.B2 endorsement on the back of the agreement. It is alleged that since Hanumareddy did not come forward for obtaining the registered sale deed after paying balance of sale consideration, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A1 notice dated 03.08.1983 to Hanumareddy stipulating that time is essence of the suit contract and calling upon Hanumareddy to pay balance of sale consideration within 15 days of receipt of notice and obtain registered sale deed. After receiving Ex.A1 notice, Hanumareddy got issued Ex.A2 reply notice dated 27.09.1983 throwing blame on the plaintiff for not performing terms of the suit contract, inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to obtain registered sale deed for the land from his brother and the plaintiff failed to get the land measured to arrive at the total consideration payable under the suit contract. After waiting for some time, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A3 notice dated 05.01.1985 to Hanumareddy canceling the suit contract. Again the plaintiff got issued Ex.A4 notice to the defendants after death of Hanumareddy on 20.12.1985. Exs.A5 to A7 are the returned covers therefor. In those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for mesne profits. The trial Court, after trial, dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Article 59 of Schedule to Limitation Act 1963. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession and relegated enquiry into mesne profits to another stage. Questioning the same, the defendants filed this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the appellants' counsel that the suit is barred by time, inasmuch as time for filing the suit for possession starts from 04.06.1978, which is the date stipulated in Ex.B1 agreement for performance of the contract, and that the suit filed in the trial Court in the year 1992 is barred by limitation. It is further contended that the defendants are entitled to protect their possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.