The High Court of Telangana passed a judgment on 20 April 2023 stating that the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the first right to sue accrue.It was stated in the case of P.Rama Krishna v. K.Goverdhan Reddy (A.S. No.626 of 2006 ) which was passed by the single judge bench comprising of HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
FACTS OF THE CASE:
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, dated 25.05.1988 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 MGP,J A.S.No.626 of 2006 3 suit schedule property in their favour for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- by receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards advance sale consideration on 19.05.1988. Later, on 25.05.1988, 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/- paid on 19.05.1988, the plaintiffs paid a further sum of Rs.10,000/- on 20.09.1988; Rs.15,000/- on 15.05.1989 and Rs.13,500/- on 18.07.1989, totaling to Rs.48,500/- 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.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the suit is not only barred by limitation but also barred by Order II sub-Rule (2) of C.P.C. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the order, dated 18.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.573 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. No order as to costs.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.
