PILLA MAHESWAR RAO Vs. SEERA SAI MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.122 of 2023, before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for specific performance of two agreements of sale, dtd. 8/12/2016. The plaint averments state as follows:

(2.) During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved I.A.No.1961 of 20245, under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint. The case of the petitioner is that the last payment, by the respondents' father, was on 24/1/2017 whereas the suit was filed on 11/7/2023. The same would stand barred by limitation as the suit was not filed within three years and there was no acknowledgement of debt or denial within three years. Further, no rent had been paid, on the property, from 8/12/2016 and the monthly rent payable for such a property was more than the suit amount. The petitioner also stated that the recitals, in the registered agreement, clearly go to show that the present suit is barred by limitation. However, the details of such other recitals were not set out in the affidavit. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner made further submissions. The learned counsel took the stand that the period of limitation, for recovery of any amount, is three years from the last date of payment which is 24/1/2017. As the suit was filed on 20/6/2023 it would have to be rejected as being barred by limitation. Learned counsel also argued that the period of agreement, under clause (3) of the agreement of sale, dtd. 8/12/2016, was six months from the date of registered agreement and upon completion of these six months, the suit would have to be filed within three years thereafter. As the suit was not filed within that time, the suit would have to be rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the clauses in the supplementary agreement of sale, dtd. 8/12/2016, required the petitioner to clear the mortgage before further payment of money could be made and the sale deed was to be obtained by paying the remaining balance. As there was delay by the petitioner in obtaining the one time settlement of the debt, the limitation would only commence from the date of clear refusal which is by way of the reply notice in May, 2022. Since the suit was filed within three years thereafter, issue of limitation would not arise.