P.RAMAKRISHNA Vs. K.GOVERDHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.573 of 2006, on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District are the appellants before this Court. The challenge in this appeal is the order of the trial Court dtd. 18/8/2006 in I.A. No. 2077 of 2006 in allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. thereby rejecting the suit as barred by limitation. For the sake of convenience, in this appeal, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are the sons and defendant No. 3 is the daughter-in-law of late K. Narayana Reddy. Plaintiffs laid the suit in O.S. No. 573 of 2006 against the defendants seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, dtd. 25/5/1988 executed by late K. Narayana Reddy in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.57.00 guntas, situated in Sy. Nos. 57 to 68, situated at Gangaram, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to the plaintiffs, during his lifetime, K. Narayana Reddy agreed to sell the suit schedule property in their favour for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000.00 by receiving a sum of Rs.10,000.00 towards advance sale consideration on 19/5/1988. Later, on 25/5/1988, said K. Narayana Reddy executed the agreement of sale (Ex.R.1) wherein the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid within a period of two years from the date of execution of Ex.R.1. As per the agreement of sale, said K. Narayan Reddy, filed the papers before the revenue officials for mutation of the land and delivered the peaceful possession to the plaintiffs. Apart from Rs.10,000.00 paid on 19/5/1988, the plaintiffs paid a further sum of Rs.10,000.00 on 20/9/1988; Rs.15,000.00 on 15/5/1989 and Rs.13,500.00 on 18/7/1989, totaling to Rs.48,500.00 to said K. Narayan Reddy and with mutual understanding, the name of the plaintiffs were recorded in the Pahani Nakal in Column No. 13 from the year 1988-89 onwards though the balance sale consideration was due to the executant. Since the land was not cultivable, the plaintiffs allegedly invested huge amount and started to raise the crops. Subsequently, the vendor changed his mind and in spite of receiving the balance sale consideration, he started harassing the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the executant on 10/4/1990 and as he evaded to receive the said notice, they filed a suit against the executant seeking perpetual injunction in O.S. No. 74 of 1990 on the file of District Munsiff (Junior Civil Judge) at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District wherein he obtained interim injunction orders in I.A. No. 166 of 1990. Since the executant i.e., the defendant therein, did not turn up, he was set ex parte on 11/2/1991, but the suit was dismissed for default on 25/2/1991. It is stated that pending the suit, there was amicable settlement between the plaintiffs and the executant, that the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the executant and that as the plaintiffs did not turn up for ex parte evidence, the suit was dismissed for default on 25/2/1991. The plaintiffs continued to grow the crops on the suit land. Subsequently, on 17/8/1992, the plaintiffs paid a further sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the executant followed by Rs.51,500.00 on 26/6/1994 towards final payment of balance sale consideration with a assurance by the executant to register the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs or in favour of their legal heirs as and when demanded. As the plaintiff No. 2, wife of plaintiff No. 1, was sick, they could not concentrate on the said sale transaction and were under the bona fide impression that the defendant would register the sale deed in their favour as and when demanded. However, the vendor i.e., K. Narayan Reddy died on 22/9/1996 and his elder son i.e., K. Ram Reddy (husband of defendant No. 3) too expired on 18/9/2005. Though the defendants assured the plaintiffs to execute the registered in their favour, they did not turn up and therefore, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice on 28/2/2006 to the defendants demanding them to execute the registered sale deed in their favour. Having received the notice, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 25/5/1988.

(3.) Contesting the suit, the defendant No. 1 filed his written statement inter alia contending that the suit is not filed within the stipulated period after issuance of the legal notice on 10/4/1990 and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The mode of payment of sale consideration by the plaintiffs as alleged in the plaint is also disputed.