CHANUMOLU RADHA RANI Vs. THOTA VISHNU RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether the Courts below were right in holding that whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, particularly when there is a pleading that the respondent-defendants have created mortgage on the plaint schedule property in favour of the bank and the same has not been discharged and the Bank had filed the suit against the respondent-defendants ?

(2.) THE appellant presented plaint in OS No. Nil/98 (G. L. No. 5492/dated 12-10-1998) before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21-10-1992. Along with the plaint, the agreement of sale and legal notices dated 5-71995 and 30-10-1995 were also filed. The notice dated 30-10-1995 is said to have been returned on 13-11-1995. However, the plaint was rejected on 27-10-1998 passing the following Order :

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the appellant carried the matter in A. S. No. 98 of 1999 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama. The appellate Court framed the point "whether the relief sought for by the appellant can be considered or not ?" for consideration and held as under :