HARI RAM Vs. SURJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this second appeal is whether the limitation under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the purpose of a pre-emption suit would start from the date of decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract or from the date of registration of the sale deed executed in pursuance of the specific performance decree.

(2.) In 1950 Smt. Kishmashi mortgaged her land in favour of Hari Ram etc with possession. Later on by agreement dated 26.8.1968 she agreed to sell her land to the mortgagees who were already in possession of the same for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Since the vendor did not execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement, the mortgagees filed a suit for specific performance of contract which finally stood decreed in their favour by judgment and decree dated 26.12.1974. In pursuance of the decree, the Reader of the Court got the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the mortgagees on 23.4.1975, since the judgment-debtors failed to get the sale deed executed as directed in the decree. On 19.4.1976, the present suit for pre-emption was filed by the pre-emptor on the plea that he was vendor's brother and a co-sharer. The defendants set up the plea that the suit was barred by time, besides taking other pleas. Both the Courts below found that the pre-emptor had established preferential right and decided the point of limitation in plaintiff's favour. This is defendants' second appeal.

(3.) In order to appreciate the point involved in this appeal, it would be useful to reproduce Article 97 of the Limitation Act:-