DONEPARTHI HYMAVATHI Vs. KOTAPATI RAMALAXMI ALIAS RADHIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 1. 5. 2008 passed in O. S. No. Nil of 2008 in C. F. No. 3072 of 2008 whereby the learned principal District Judge, Nellore observed that the claim for compensation for the period from 18. 12. 1989 to 22. 4. 2005 was barred by limitation and directed the plaintiffs i. e. , the petitioners herein to restrict their claim from 23. 4. 2005 to 23. 4. 2008 with subsequent interest.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioners herein and two others executed an agreement of sale on 17. 8. 1989 and they were put in possession of the schedule property i. e. , M/s. Gowri Rice Mill, allipuram, Nellore, on 18. 12. 1989. Though the agreement of sale was executed and sale consideration was also paid in part as the petitioners and two others have not come forward and registered a regular sale deed, the respondent herein i. e. , K. Ramalakshmi and two others filed O. S. No. 73 of 1997 for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The petitioners herein, who are defendants 1 and 5 in the said suit, contested the matter on various grounds. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 12. 11. 2007 holding that the agreement of sale alleged to have been executed is not enforceable, however a clear finding has been recorded by the trial Court that the respondent herein continued to be in possession of the Rice Mill from 18. 12. 1989. In that view of the matter, as the petitioners, for no fault of theirs, were dispossessed and have not enjoyed the fruits of the Rice mill, instituted the present suit claiming damages from the date of their dispossession i. e. , 18. 12. 1989 to the date of the institution of the present suit i. e. , 23. 4. 2008. An objection was raised by the office stating that the claim insofar as it relates to the period from 18. 12. 1989 to 22. 4. 2005 is barred by limitation and the suit is maintainable only from 23. 4. 2005 to the date of institution of the suit. In the light of the said objection, the matter was posted before the Court and the learned II Additional district Judge, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/the alleged plaintiffs upheld the objection taken by the office and gave a finding that the suit for compensation for the period from 18. 12. 1989 to 22. 4. 2005 is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs/petitioners herein are directed to restrict their claim for compensation only for a period of three years i. e. , from 23. 4. 2005 to 23. 4. 2008 with subsequent interest, and thus, refused to number the suit. As stated supra, the said order dated 1. 5. 2008 is under challenge.

(3.) SRI Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Section 23 of the Limitation Act and stated that in case of the suit for compensation, for an act which does not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury results therefrom, the period of limitation shall be continued from the time when the injury results. Inasmuch as the respondent herself has categorically admitted that she was put in possession of the Rice Mill as early as on 18. 12. 1989 the said injury resulted on that day itself i. e. , 18. 12. 1989, and in a suit of this nature, the normal period of limitation of three years has no application and the damages shall be continued from the date of the said injury.