J.ELLAPPA REDDY Vs. GALI SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application raises the question of limitation and the application of section 30 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act. The respondent obtained a decree and put the property in dispute to sale on 20-2-1961 and purchased it himself on the said date. The sale was confirmed on 28.11.1962. Prior to the confirmation of sale the appellant before me had filed E. A. 115/61 to set aside the sale which was also dismissed on that date. Agrieved by the order dismissing his application to set aside the sale, he had preferred C- M.A. 47/1962 which was also dismissed on 19-10-1963. He filed E. A. 265/64 on 30-9-1964 asking for delivery of possession. The main contention taken to the maintainability of this petition was that it was barred by limitation.

(2.) It was argued that the Limitation Act of 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the old act) fixed a period of three years from the date the sale becomes absolute; but under article 134 of the new act a period of one year has been prescribed as the period of limitation starting from the date the sale becomes absolute. Thus Art. 134 of the New Act prescribes a shorter period than the one prescribed under the old Act. It is therefore contended that the case is governed by the provisions of section 30 (b) of the New Act. Sec. 30 (b) reads.

(3.) The expression 'prescribed period' appearing in this section 2 (j) of the New Act defines 'prescribed period' as the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this act. This definition of 'prescribed period' is compared with the definition of 'period of limitation in the same clause of the same section. 'Period of limitation has been defined therein as the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the schedule. It is argued that while apply Sec. 3 it is not only the provisions of the schedule that will have to be taken into consideration but also the provisions of the Act. There cannot be any dispute as far as this proposition of law is concerned.