MURALI MOHAN NAIDU Vs. ISKALA NADI RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel representing the appellants had raised the following substantial question of law :

(2.) The learned counsel in all fairness submitted that except the above question, no other question need be gone into in the present second appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel would maintain that the ingredients of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had not been satisfied and findings in this regard had not been recorded in accordance with law and hence, the Courts below had totally erred in decreeing the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff. On the contrary, Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent/plaintiff had pointed out that the suit was initially filed for recovery of amount on the basis of promissory note executed by one Yellappa, as against the first defendant Boya Pullamma who is also the daughter of Yellappa. The learned counsel also submitted that in the light of the specific stand taken, the appellants/defendants 2 to 4 herein also were impleaded as parties in O.S. No. 181 of 1989 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Nandikotkur. The learned counsel would maintain that at any rate the estate of Yellappa was represented even initially, but the other defendants were also brought on record and hence this was just and bona fide mistake and the suit is within the period of limitation in the light of the provisions of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963.