Pyari Kumari vs Kanthamma on 2 April, 2008

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Pyari Kumari vs Kanthamma on 2 April, 2008

Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 " .N<;)';3s, HOSPITAL RDA

I

IN THE HIGH cpum or KARNATAIIA AT BA.1§:GAL" A   *

DATED THIS THE 21'" David? ;u9s1[i&.,    

THE He.-3 2.1:: MP. 4:.m~_¢E%g,; 

THE nownm MR. Jﬁéﬁéi:  *3?-53.5 aewm

;--------.--

Naa, _1;zs, %1129,%1132,1133
6"?'

 

I€.eggI_ltu_jV_;_Ijg_1;.gs_l;j:'IS»1';11_¢z     :al mg. 1  or 2007

% E1

(I.

     

'..'._. '...

1~1':.s'7 of - _

    

Regglar f_Fj__ij_st  

 

 
 

SMT, _PYARILKUMAR1V 
wgc; I-IEMANTH 'KUMAR
AG'£EDM_AJOR-  .

 » BMSVIGALORE-u5'3.
A ._ 'REP11Es»9;N1fE'DT_i3'a{GPA I-{OLDER

L ' ._HEfMANTH«  C:HOUBR'z'

... APPELLANT

(B53 M[S'C"1--uiLAPATHY ASSOCIATES, ADVS. )

 VA  D %

  KANTHAMMA
' AG..ED 49 was
?W/O ILNARAYANA RAJU
" R/AT No.76/9, 4TH MAIN

15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
E':ANGALORE--3

':1-

'Ri: S 'ffx" KOUN EPWA A S,

S
SR! VINAY PAUL, ADVS. FOR C] R)



RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 0:-* CFC AGA1'1\IET.,"T;:.::_. 
JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE [}'I'.30.03.'2007 Pé'\S'SEIJI1'J_""E '
OS.NO.426/1996 ON THE FILE OF' THE xxv ADDL.cVITY'-.CIv1_L'~AND 
SESETONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE"----s'u1T"~~F'o,R 

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 1'

RFA 1128337
EEEILI

SR]. ZAALAM SINGH
s_/o .1012 SINGHIJI 
AGED MAJOR . ' 
A.K.1.AYouT, SHANTEINAGAE 
BANGALORE-27 , '
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER '  V
HEMANTI-I KUMAR CHOUDRY-'  ' -  *

V   =  APPELLANT

"Y MIG CHALA_PPiTHY?E'I§s__SRINIV};S) 
I K BA

SM .. ...-n.1~.!T1u..n.T;, AG Ei' " 
w/oKNa:RAYANAE~w;'«.E ' " _
R,/AT 140.7143,/9, ma zs.r;A.;:z_ V  '_
15TH cnoss, MALLESWA.RAM"  
BANGALORE-E4 * * ;  

 ..  RESPONDENT

~ . '_ (BY sﬁfrazgt KOUNDI.N¥A A 3 FOR 0/ R} RFA' fEu,EE--. UNDER SECTION 9:3 OF CPU AGAINST THE 7vJuEGEME'i-T'? T .."AN1;--. DEGREE D'I'.3().03.2D07 PASSED IN CiF3..I\'§Q.:3'9*?4f'i99f>'(Eff FTLE CJF' 'THE XXV ADDLEITY CIVIL AND SE&'}SIC'NS JUIDGAE», BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT EUR 3 E{;I..FIC PE -{P-'C".}T'\'}v{:'-'1. CE. 7__n.1m ;;2,E2,um-

._".SRI. CHIMNARAM, s'/0 JETHARAMJI "AGED 27 YRS _T v EMT No.33/2, HOSPITAL ROAD ~ . BANGADORE-53 .. 'REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER KUIVTAR CHCUDRY . APPELLANT {BY '1'vi;'S CHAi.APA'i'H'x' ENE SRWIVAS} D - (sheik S»*.CHADLAPATH«Ym8L§RINIVAS) Am.!;!;w.E1 K N PRAKASH AGE:27 YRS S/0 K NARAYANA RAJU ~ Ric» I'4'O.'76;'9, I 15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM !'JA'A'Ir"'.I'lf\ 'D 0 l:Il'l.£'I|J'.l"|lJ\l .|1l"\J =,_ ° .D .V R125' t5Q;m_§;u'r:':

(BY SR1: SHYAM KOUNDINYA A S AND' 3121; VIDIAY PAUL T ADVS. FoR._c,1}2_1_ RFA FILED UNDER'-«.31-x_:T:oN;_90*-.cssr 'ape AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE' L-.r:'r,3o.o3..2ao7--. PASSED IN os.No.ss4-2/1995 on THE F1_L_E' QF THE xxv ADD.L;CITY czvzr. AND SESSIONS JUDGE; * aaneammg, nlsmxssme THE surr FOR SPECIFIC PERFQRREANCE. ~ EA ;1§g¢o7_-

SR1. UDARAM, SIG .,1c_)RARaMJ:..._ 9.93.0 MA-JDR, B!-IADRA 2ND FLOOR, AVENUE ROAD '~ B_ANC_iA1;QRE-«2 " V ' 2 REPRESENTEI3 BY GPA. HOLDER HEw;NT:1..KUMAR.cHoUD1zw APPELLANT sm."z{N PRA3i«;A.'§H"

AGED 27 ms S/O 1{.NARAYANA RAJU a nu up. u ' a,I.A.*r l\IO.7;'3,'9, awry mm D 1.5'l.'H CRGSS, MALLESWARAM ' »aA.'1w--Az_oR:;-:z RESPONDENT SRI: SHYAM KOUNDINYA A S AND SR1. VINAY PAUL T K) " RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF' CPC AGAINST THE 'JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE DT.30.03.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.6972/1996 ON THE FILE OF' THE XXV ADDL.Cl'l'Y CIVIL AND SESSiC)Ni§ JUDGE, $NGALL"JRE, Di3Mi3SiNCi "Pi-IE SUE'? FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

RETUIEEB 1 sm. GOPAL SINGH s/o RATAN SINGH ..

AGED MAJOR 1 No.33; 1, 2ND FLOOR HOSPITAL ROAD BANGALORE63 REPRESENTED av GPA HOLDER KUMAE CHOUDRY (BY M/S CHALAPATHY AND':'%_;iI:sz1vA;§s) VA ~ um:

SRLKNPRAKASH ._ V AGED27 YRS sxoxmmvam RAJs.1,_~.'_ V ._ __ " . R/AT No.76/9,i4TH.MAIN'*=. , V' 15TH CROSS,MA.LLESWAR£:.M'-. «- BANGAIKJRE-3 ._ 1 RESPONDENT (BY s-RI: KorJ--ND't';a'Y_AvA_ S-A raD SR1. VINAY PAUL '1' K) RFA FIL'E'i3.,VVUI€[§ER."-SI§{i'I'IC)N 95 OF cpc AGAINST THE V ._ILI.r.\r.3,I:.;g§«_.I;.==:z~ﬂ.* ECREE D'i'.30.03.2Gﬁ7' PA3SED IN "~ 0S.NCJ.G97;3D_(19.96 on 'I'}iE"'E"ILE OF THE xxv ADDI..CI'I"t' CIVIL AND SESSIONS J{JDGAE, B.A.!\!C-.'AL£JRE, DIS}.'.IS- N-C3 THE SUIT FOR V'v._s?E.VCi'FIC PERFQRMANCE.

 .     S/'O.LATE cnoan RAMJI
'AGDDDMMOR -

 _AvENu;a= ROAD

"R}'.~'x.T B?E:'xi":Ra 1vumiSiON mweamvr-* vs 002 « £4" I-LY.

u. 114' uni _REP7RESEN'I'ED BY am HOLDER KUMAR C!-IQUDRY ... APPELLANT (BY M/S CHALAPATHY AND SRINIVAS) 'I &E..QI SR1. K N PRAKASH AGED 27 YRS, I A .; . "

S/OKNARAYANA RAJU A .2 2 ' R/AT NC).76/9, 4TH MAIN, 1 ' ' 15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 oos.

{BY SS1-. SHYAM KOUNDIN'.-'A. A S, SS:..------vISm' "SAUL 'I'.K.}v V , C. r7 . ' ~Vu op -u 15 u '.9' mm FILED LIMDES .,z.:sS 9:3 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE D1"§30.Q3{2.007 PASSED IN OS.NO.427_/1996 ON_'_I'HE FlLE..O_t'?,TH_E xx'v'ADSL;S1TY c1v11_. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,' i3ANG;aLoRS,A: DI3.MISSINC§. THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFOEMASQE. » ..

T1;t:St§ 11gvi:;1g' S1'; i;t:.~:,i.1'tl, 11.e:,s¢_e1'\.:r,er_1 n_ .1»:-

JudgmcntVTv V1.-:;pn1ingV_ "cn..__fo1f£' pronouncement o 'l...l..-..-.".-.d '-_aL'.:.- .W3..g.'.1s-ml:-1-rd-ii-1.1-Inn-.n nu-nun-an :-

uuugu1::.uI., u.;_i:s (guy, xv nuuurnlan uuwun. sh. pronounccxl tthevfﬁllnwirxgg ' ., ' - ' STSSSSEEHI '3'Pl;n;11tﬂTs appellants. Suits ﬁled by them :i;S"_G,S$;v1§oS';£t26j96, 427/96, 6342/95, 6972/96, 6974196, for decree of Speciﬁc _ _ _ I 1-I-:gs-run-:u.|.s.u;a1 njnu.-nu: nu-'I11. f'\ 3 RT...' Ilkabll LI..I.D.l1.I.I-BDCJKI Call. 115 VVII.-.I.I. \J-'Q- 1' an 94 and 10718/'94, ﬁitzd for dc<:1't:c of pe1'1na;m::11t inju11clio11. ReSpo11dcntS are the dt:I'c11da:ut:s in the suits. All the suits were clubbed togcthcrfur 1'(":COl'di.Ilg common evidence and disposal. After trial, a (:(JIl1lI1011 '/,t judgiutrlii. has 'pecan passed. The _ 00111111011 queslioms of facts and tl_1_¢-.:...is_suc::-_s* lha£ a1isr: fu1' cunsidclalioll are 00111111011 i.<-3., fzicis' Hence: they were taken up Lcg6u_1e1', Ibtf i1e:aiAi11g:.__£1i--::1 am Lﬁiglga ~.n(_ -gﬁlnulv (Ii:-a1n_)9.:r=.d nl',..._ '

2. On 11. 1.2.1991, of sale, wen: <1_t:I'e11da11Ls and the *;111d'eij agreed to sell and 1'ccil'.a1s ofﬁnc ag,1t-31s1§t1g:»'11i.:sn'a1t: as foiiows: "3. h}I'h¢:«-sale transaction shall be complclnd thmc: the venrlnr nhtains no-

'zobjjccizion certiﬁcate from the Bangalore ,_r~'~..,_..'..1.';~......~......4 A...+1......:4.. 4-,... ....1.._. Ar +1.- ...._1..! "I- vLfFE:ﬂ'CL$.f_i}J.1lCllL 5114.1»-l.l.IJl.-l.Ly IUJ. U|.'o'I..lKs« U1. |nL'l.la EILIJ-I-lr loll-Kr pmpsriy to the purchaser or the vendor satisﬁes ithev ..~*purchaser that there is no impediment z whatsoever for completion of the sale

- Jiwansacliull. "

"vii1') If the vcndul' (.':$:I11I1(Jl obtain no objection ccrtiﬁcatr: fmm RDA with in fmar mantha fmm to-day, than the purchaser may at his option terminate mia arr;-emeat, whereupan the vcndsr shall immediately mtum the sale consideration received. If payment is not made fiﬁeen days, he] she shall be liable to pay interest at 18°/6 per anlluln." \ /T 'Ir in C5.

the appellants, the relevant pUl'l.i01J. of w11ie:l.-;:,.:'* "

A'\ follows: -

nu Cub, It:1t::vu.uL p"I"i.'iI'..'IIi {if 'w1ii"}1, "4. Since my client was tVh1Uu.gl1uI.::t'V'A-1ttad.y 1.-:{11L.l' wining to perform her pn1't_dF._the e'r¢1'.r__1 egre-em'e=;ﬁi:,~Vyb11r inaction and silence anaounts to breach' of the said agzeemem. Ye-u leave 1142!.---x:-i!2:_:e"--».!5.::\.=v.-s-.i5£i-- ;.:5.:1v.ple!.-.:

the sale t.ranaactin'11'.'~..«_Ya~:'z have..gaI_1reacfly lam'. legal right to enferee the s-uﬁ mails:-{r..the_ciii:'um'"'s'uau.""'ees stated above. My client has ialleadfgftpld you that he wouid foI'feii~ am. 'one? Gfj1{'J,.O('50i- received in this 1'egea1i}.. 111 '2_yo;u,-.asa #1' part of the consid;;ratio1I§u;neunt. "

V5. ¢-£111; to filxtilnalx: you that the a:'§i;isa"ﬁ¢'2e.?§n1c>1.i.fi:!t e1"~Re.1.!),f)I."iiT)j- receiver! by my client uiecler the vagseemenf' e._1:_a*.e(;'. above is forfeited and you

1...'.-- '..1_..;.-.1-_.1'.....p.-...;,,_, v.......1 __:...1.4. 4.. _...c_...... 4.1.... .3 uuvt: uucuzuy '1UE.'ll.. yang .l§=5?.'.IJ. ugur. nu Iuuuxuc I-LID utuu agreement which you 'please note and my client will deaf! with the e__aid.Vp'mperty in any maxmer he iikes."

the appel_1;:1_1;£.:s hagl sent .9:-epa1'aLe I ....|.'. .... ...l........-d 1'eads as feliow s:

: Your client has been plumising my client 'V,.4.1.__;. 1.... --.._...._'I.'l .......4. _.. ...._ ..1...:....._;:_.._.. _.,____._;.:1.g..=._.u..._ .I'.'.._...-.... 'L.L.lE1l. 115 WULIIU gUL U. IIU UUJUULIUII LIU1 UIILHLC LIULU "the Bangalore Development Authority and arrange for completing the sale transaction. The I.a.g1'¢:e11;e1;l_. LII sale pzovidee L115.-l.L if 1:1.) gLIjet_:l..it_111 certiﬁcate is not obtained within four months ﬁ'()iI1 the date of the agreeiiieilt, my client hm':

':4 U11 6.8.1993, 1'espo11de11i.s had issued 130 the option to keep the agwclltelxt. alive o1':Vte--' " . for refund of the advance paid. My c1uient..Ahas'*~ ' acco1'di113l_y t;n:aI.ing Lhc £;l,gI't:ti.l.1;f:1;L a.:s. and in the circmnstanccs, there: is.'11oVqucstiu11j_ nu'. -Innla 11'-:;_uu\.I .n.-.l;-:u...- l'....., -9--P-....1._.l ._f' i'1--.--.'----- ->---'~.---- 1-~-~---EA' ' u1 Luy L.--uc:4.u. uanuqg; 1u1 1I:1l.uL!u Ui...Ll1p':'» ¢,uu1_1cy ]_;.!£:i1u to your client under the ag1'eeméI_it. Xx xx V My cliesiit is .2-md Wiiiiiig 'to perform his part af"rhc--'agme§1It_;:nt'in accordance with the terms of 'the 'ug,it-.'en_1ezjt_ "t'._ sale. My client __11ot r:_c2m1_11i.tt=e:=d~.,%a;1}'. f:-r¢::;ach of the ag1*ee111e1.1t..é' In; I.1_,1e_:'V.«:ci1i:u_:11ste:fa1cc, then: is questioﬁ-_'V oi??j,rGLir" .c1ier1t_ ,ft'nf'f"c:ifi11g the sum of R:s.10;.'00{1}'.-"" _c'1it_:nt"Vwiw1i' cxelcise 511011 rights uas---1'§1;'e avaﬂahlé no him in law in £1GCD1'1_1_£.i.1lft_X$ \.'J:'*:iﬂt"!J,'1r_=. DI the was-z1teI1|.. Please. adviss _ym1'ir._cE1i¢:_:nt. .accordingly.

5. ﬁpptdliatttas. V11-atiiztgdxut been able: to obtain sale " ' pLt1's1tm1tV'tO"'i;i1e said ag1'et:n1c11ts of sale, alleging Hi-r::1'f;:spo11de11ts in the lnatter of perfonning V'-»ii1itiiaiIy:_iTu:* dccxtzc oi' injuuctiolt SiIl1p1iCii.OI' in 0. S. No. to 10718 of 1994. Subsequently, appellants _MI_'i!fed the suits for dccwe for speciﬁc perI'onuance. The suits filed by the apprcllautas, were contested by the §l' 1'r:5nr 1 .1. 1:1 15251 c ' were 1':....;-.n.-:.. in can}: 9! the suit' Y In The suite having beep e_I__:l__.c.i ...;g...1.1;..1', _ii_.ieI':':§_1;s2;'1 _ I'\ 'I appellazxts/plaintiffs, their p0Wt'J:IVf_ was exalnined as PW 1, iii 'agldiIi011x1.e i;!V:1i"e§e....;;11:.é:1' witnesses, PW 2 to 4. 'I_'11e doe_Lﬁ';:e_15!.§ the appellants have 1__.e1; m.;~1«_«:...1 E2£j;P1'e -Le P 79. \.lI1 '"*}iaiI' "F the i=eepeI1deiIi;s;' .:iei'e1e;.i;ie11i:s,...'é'i;?:iei1' power of attorney l1Q.1de1j 'V 1j'g'l-".*'_~§=lI:!£..l.."I1l€¢(}:f as. DW 1 and the doeu111eIV1.L§ppi'e(h.ieeQ_ 1s;§ve"beeI,;VVV1r~ia1'ked as Ex. D 1 Lu

6. The by the trial Court.

6. .»4Respe11deiit;e.,i_1e,d e11'Le1'ed caveat. hearing for the appellasute and 1'espu11de11t.§} e§i\kealo1's, the trial Court records wele Zealledu fp1V1*.A..Ai-guu1e11ts on the main appeals were heaul. ___"'"me;de submissions both on file queelions of fuels and ' We have perused the record of the trial Court. \'/' /r'

6. 11--1;i2'eza.ﬂ.1"e§Ti.he 10

3. 'Trial Court has held 'that, the piair:éVt:ii'ifS"~. _ proved execution of the ,agI'eeii1e1i!;$» Vtklatedp 11.12.1991, but have failed to p13ave;'_tii:ei1;'w_tllitig1teS€-_tLe.i pe1'fo1'1n their part of pblitgafo11at'»v._tII:1§ie1r. -'the * L' Ar: 1 agwemeute .... h".K3Ll.\4Io that the suits are balmed.tby"ii1i1i:'1atiei1.a1»:(;i the piai11ti1"1"s are not entitleti to pray-eti for and has disn1issedg'tl1e_««si1itég t L t pi"i)}.\ei'tiee___i:ave entered into, separate agreelnelrts of

1. 12. 1991, with the appellants, agveeing to 'e;e11_tl1e echedule properties; after expiry of four Iuonths ~pe1'iod from the date of enterixtg into 01' the sale ....-.. [Inn :31 ug,1'6E"1iiﬁiiiS, 1i6"cee te usu cl meumite 111....' mla stating that due to the iuactioli and silence on the part of the appellants and due to the appella1\1ts failure to .1! ll colnplclc the salt: Lrallsaclioll, they have allvaglce amount; Lllti appellants have lost" ileggal T' '"i"'i£. E." "Iif"i'Cv;'i the a"""€$6IIi6'ii{.S Eﬁid '.l1aL"«L..€é\r~ ..'.-.I'.5.!.l»_b-'.:' dealing with Lhe p1'opc:rLy i11_tl_1§: 1ni1z1_i1e1' Lilcfy. E1117 V staparatc reply notices datt.:&' clailned that non c01.t1ﬁ;._It;l;i.<.>1'_ll Sale l1'el11l§actio11 wa; c_-1 .a_,:g,n__-1L A__I Ll,1¢::A'1fc$}.'o11Ll¢:l1tt$l"11Ot.'ilzthizlg able to obiaiii no l'i"nii1"*'tl1" Ba11"a}c1'c Dcvclupmcrit~.Aii.ll'lg1'lVLy'_ (J_"r[>'1':*'l_'a;1i:'t')19L which was one of the (:gJ11c__li11.ibliv.-IgIV..q juudtsr the ag1'ec1nc11l.:s of sale; they wliavc 't':r'c£s1'.§:L1'""tlV16V agvcclncnt as subsisting, 11:__c_li1;t.::ss and williugxless Lo 4 I;

pen"o1*m_ 'L'uui;r"pari of [316 c;1::11'¢.1*aL*i, and liave Sta;-=d mat, llltzj/.wﬂl' such rigllts as an: available to them Lk i11laii'v.

(bl! ~'l'11ougl1 the rcspundelnts have admitted the fact of '11:1ei1* t311l.t3I'il.lg into of the salt: ag1'c:cmen1.s with the appellaiita, ﬁle" Pave take}; the: plea Llaat, Lllamz '.1-.r:..5 \ K ml! '1': on the n 11 uf "L4 an-uellm; ' in pe.1'Io1111i1f1g' .;. u ...n..---.-.

coiliiractuai obiigutieiis, coiisequesiitiy .. 3 legal notice dated 6.8.1993, {lie mpudiattad. 'I'l1t:1'caI'Le1' suiLs»'I'u3:_ dt:(.."'1=vt_:t':" of }J§3i1;1.9n_1e1,iL V i11_jLmclio11 silnplicitor vvgltz O»..VS." Lo 10'? 18,1 1994 091115! l1i=:. '1'::a-i--Vhr welt: co11i,csi.t:d 1;3.(_h L'u;:'"

apptzllants pc1'1'o11na11c:c on the fQll<.1wﬁ'1gV'déVi--S;;$; .. A O;'S.NO. A x ﬂung 425,-"35 '. % 1g;m;1995 "M17/9.5 'b " « 18.01.1996 % «634,2 /95]' 21.09.1995 A 04. 10. 19% 0 ind an

-.9 am 5-97:32,I9r5 04. 1

1...:

'C5

1...:

5-5:} K9 0''! , "t:~974/95 04.

17(0) Trial Court, by taking into cumsidt:1'aI.io11, the fact of execution of Lhe. agwexuclits of sale being on \/ /' I 13 rm .1 11.1' .1991, we date ﬁxed for po1'I'o1'n1aI1co __'L:i:i1tg"-'f§Hi1*» .

months, has held that, limitation _11as oo1i1iiic':1:s;:1c:d"'f1fo111 11.04.1992. By applying the Article 54 of the I4ilI1il£1t.i01VJtV.A'(£.L_, itthast tho ' ' I Ill!-*1'!-I FHPH 1\Hu;n't . "..I}rI'Hr- ' ' wt-ut"!-1' 'I 'In l.I..I.I.aL3 " J...-J'J.l-I '7 'J' 'J I.J'3.§\J\l w '4!.&\' 15*'-IL ':1? J 'r<4"IQo§- V-3 ill 'J-IQ-I

10. S11 . Counsel, §,+:o1tL¢§11ded that, [how is no date the sale agwcmexlts, 11;-1'k¢;t_1 1'4:';"_.aNI1at was ﬁxed therein was an .1- . . ﬂ...

. , ovexzi, iiiﬂiliﬁly obi;;1u1ij,1g oi' the no objtiotrion i:¢:rt.im;a'L";' »r:j:o:.--n_ alienation of the properties by tho r'es.p4J11dena.£s,VA'w"l1icl1 was not obtained oven till the date of the suits. Lc:amc:d Senior Counsel 1"urt11c1' Wizoilitzlzdcd that, ll; . Win' at I It ha. the: suits as bH1'l'('3(i by iiillitatioil. Leaiiled Sﬁiliﬂi' "Counsel l'u1't11cr cout.endod that, the fact. of obtaining 'no objection oort.iﬁcatc for co11st:ruct.io11' was also not I \/ /__» 14

-....--1.t 1 _ 1 .u1&1Ll xmown my the respoixdents, eve11__-*wi1en' ~ notices dated 6.8.1993 i.e, Ex.P_as... .16, "' and 26 were issued to them. It ie.écc2i_1l.e11de¢,1"t1.ial,; the said fact was supp1'essegt"'~ the for consiructioxn froln' u lvespondents came to the only on 24.8. 1995,; to know of a joint 28.2. 1994, Ex. P '?'8, 1;+..t:;.iz;.g: 'i;_},r htne Ieepondente in .aveur of a 'L'ni1v.i psa1'tyVa1_;d'~iie:..ai:e the suits ﬂied immediately to it ---- -witllin the period of limitation. Counsel contended that, it was the the respondents to have obtained the no event having not ta1<.en place, the trial Court llfae committed an ermr in holding that, the suits are barred by limitation. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon some decisions in support of his contention that, \,.

/or 15 it is only on the happening of the agreed event, ,4 of limitatiuzi emnmenees and not otherwise.

11. Per !,2Q11l.1'l:l_, Sri vem '~lea1'ﬂed,xV"

Counsel appearing for the uﬂiiii, under Ex.P 9 Lo 14, I'om'.__111o11l'.hs' was Si.ip'L1laLeLi, which has expired on 105.-4.19912. _E'._ir'e1',.i~.1li_';1e1'ea11e1' the appellants <_1id'i;.-'I1oL:=._ pei'feI:1é1:i'1'~?."- eolxuuctual 'Lu cu~::1p1epc sale trai1'saeiiens, cu11seque.1;l."upo:.;_w.1'xiei:,,__1iie£:ioes at Ex.P 16, 18,. 20,22, 24 and. 1264*" .7ise'ue£i: by the Ieepundente, when:

""ux;de{; (Se-gjxuaeig/ehagleed under Ex.P 9 to 14, were 'med Counsel cu11'Le11ded Lhai. the said noiiees K ,:"ee1,1,L_ respondents were sewed on the appellants

--1hey had sent. their reply on 24.08.1993, as per 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25. It is contended by the IA av Article 54 of the Limilalioll Act, 4 months u been stipulated in Lin: unrucmezais 5... "

p'..--:1'ii:v-z'. --f iiiniiaiiuii has coinmclxégcd f:i1ii1i.9fiQ._i99zwV the. suits which were filed 1.113'-¢;'-__€ barred by liuliu-.m'o11 and thus jijsﬁﬁed in dismissing the £15 lilnitalion. Learned CuL;1;:5t::1_ t.:iLr;2«.l.....¢_!1e.-_tr.**.i.-.~slt:.2A1;.,. ;,.h.. $'aippe1".ed the impugiiedj . '

12. Co11sidciii1'~~«»ﬂ1e: i'ivvétiv..g:<31ii.c:11Lio11es and the mcord, the poi11tS"!.1'm1. a1'is6"foz.* culxsidelalioli axe:

" '~ ,1) suits Iiled by the W ., _Vap_peiia;ItsfpiainﬁfI"s, are barreci by limitation? 2}» --._WIie§Iiv;¢1'~[,'i11e appellants/p]ai11ti[I's have proved, ' Lhei: madincss and wilIi_.'1gncss to purchase the "'p113pe1'iies in teruis of the agmclnelit of sale dated 1'1,_i2; 1991-."-

"'3) = _iAW11elhc:1' the trial Court was juatilied in " ﬂismissing all the suits filed by tiiﬁ vs-Ana-can-I appellm 1l.S/ plailxlilfs?

\ V L n.;..-. ;::.1" ;..-¢ ~,l.l..'llI.'.'-_)f"'V..I.J.'..l ,~,1uL y 17 Bm

13. Sale agreements between the parties V' 1 In 'IA uun luau:

mu ;1 u said a3ree1ne11Ls, 1espo11dem$_ i1at§._"'u11de1?L£a1§ex1A' ljp ° obtain no objection me DIvPt:rties from the ' !'qur H'i11e11I.11s. Ad1niI.Ledly the 1esp011de11:t§= Lhe at EXPIG, 18,: have Speciﬁcally Iepudiabed Ex. P 9 to 14, by stating it who am: the ﬁe1"'I'o1'1n the cumract consequently, they V --IlaV(3 iOSl"--V rights under the sale ag1'ee1ue11l$ and K va.givaii1ee amount paid was furI'eil.ed. Flmn Lhe ol'Ex. P 16, 13, 2.0, 2.2 24 &1,;t.1 2:3 1; 1.: pg ﬁ;F..v-- ;

4i'.'.'.'. :1. ._.. _..1 ._ 4 - 1 '*,u i. u e respouu' u'u:- Had asseried, for the '4 'l''n'st Lime that, the sale agreexnents stood repudiated \ '~/.

I8 and Liley are incapable of being periblincd u1f_::§r:111i1t;'i'.i:'*iit::"~ . Collljllutid. Appellants had wplie-d__i by,__sLaLiijg" id have 6X6l'(.'i5cd Lll6il' optiun 1.0 aliim-."' *3.' agI'Bt.'lIlt3l1[S and had deineizicicad llic: 'to BEA, 'Lo couipicic the A FIDIII pcrusai of Ex. P 910 is had agreed to obtain 'mi alienation [mm the :;1:'é;a;ux' "'3.~*.:i:iod and execute the null: Jud'-):i|.'2' 'ht' .'f|.-.n"w.rI-'zn\r"x!l|}.\ utnu.n"u1v|Iu I3.n.au-run1:].n':|Is:

w.n:4.u.« uuuuu 'J41 Aqvvntg us ».41.\.«_ cu. 14:11:99. .l\\.4E!tl'\..l'l.l\.al.L4lJ.l..€l have: not obiailiczd 'no objcclioxi <:c1'lJTical.c/s' I01' .aiie1;:§um1, .l'i5o1nw£.«l'1c EDA within the agreed period. default by the appellants, had '. flung 1|a\'~l':1-uAi'._-as 11:1' a Q 1(_1n'.) in-5 |In'|;1\ u -1pm.;-nu'-:n._na I|)A._I_'IO.I._L nus D .I.I\JLli\a~'D kl-C11-\.d\l 'J-Ch LJYU, IA) llllrll IKJIJLI D ID LII. 1't§1:L;dialg:d' cuinractsj sale agtzeuiciils, by sending 1993. Thouglx the cvmit L0 be ptzrfomicd under sale agreczlnents did not take place, stiﬂ in View of the clear rcpudiaiioii of the cunlractes by the 1't:spo11dc111.s, as per their notices at ELF 16, 18, 20, \\ K |--.

'D 22, 24 and 26, the cause of action to sue fo1'..~9:1J&ts::iI"1§': pc:1'l'o:1na1;t;c has cumlntanccd in Lcrnns of L113. ;51=~9vi$iu1_15 3 cﬁiiiaiiied nr the act of repudiaLiu11. The or £1c:tio11.V.ié:;rs ué: f'£;;1' 9 specific pclfurunancc, having c.'¢JiiIz1 V11~t:1V1t:¢:Li'u1_j{t.i'1e sgalvicc of legal 11uLicc dated adﬁliitcd by g}_;}_)¢_-;1}_a;;I_9s_~. __I_)y :.»I_I1 .'i* i¢_-.5: (ll-II.£*'.d 24.3.1993, 9:59 L1:i§1gi€1t_ tqj:. i;§1$i.(5"ibeicu ﬂied within three 1 li19ﬁ'ef1'o111. 0.3. N05. 6972/96, e973;=95% 99audVj'6974;96, have been ﬁled on

4. 10. 1995 of Lhltt: years period.

' -5979, 6979 »..-.1»: 5974 91' 1995, vs;

a1'e«i1_a11ji:ti 3)}/"3i1Ilii.aiiOI1. T116 co11i.eni.ion raised by the Sri S.K.V. Chalapathy that,

-V li111il,:":i'.:i.oirv1.&V cbi11111e11ocs only on the happclliug of event, :1«'1t;i:i1%iléy,VVV"obtai11i11g of no objectioll ct:I'l.iﬁt_:al.c/s for

-- ;r.ﬂ'E4-Inul an -n-In Hun, RDA I 1.: HI _ W-_."nn1|:i ini. whivh ' J': \'JI5 I415'! -I-IFIOQJII ll', IAIQ'-P II' vﬁﬂ-IVJJ-b " may did 1101. o'Dim'11 and the fact, of even ifuc obiailling oi' the no objccliun ct:rliI'icatt: for cu11su'uctio11, having \/9 4;

_ '.g;xpi13} 3 ___years period.

__ ""69' '?4/' 1996, had stated that they are wady and wi"*i1g vJi%~1=$4;i.;'i«a= .~; 0.3. N-~~ -5972,1199-5 N! C) come to the knowledge of the appellants as .;. A4

1.}... n .L. J 4-135 . .....,...i ....-..,.n....... ..........1...'I'~. 1111::-ut. t15lCD1.l.l.GI.1E., U U\.u'ix3u ~ l't3Sp0l1dt3Ill.S in favour of a third Tgiitjsg.' ¢.jI"":--1(:t1:@_1__1 ;, A' to sue: or the peziud Lu i11sLiLL'1Le__ll1e'suitei cu1i1ix;e.1V1_ccdi, V ciLhc:1~ with I'cfQ1-;iI1L'c ' 1.0 " T_ joint _ .- . ,.,-_.,-_. _c,,-v _ P 78 Q1' wheii the cuiil" 1:1 1i111iLaLio_1V1,%...ibf_ mlaxfccptablc, in view of me the legal l1()l.i(2t'.t5 dated 6.8.199. sia.i5i=9 |V1i;_:I.!4}!.l.;'::éA¥;.7*= 1 .114. 1 is 11:11: ,l."i5.L A

-,oI' 1"u1'iiL;ii,i1"1g the advgpgcc amuu'ni.,'we11: sewed 011 the .._Nos. 6972/1996, 6973/1996 and ﬁled only on 4.10.1996, i.c., after the Merely because the §?' 11:

Lt'> pea-1'I'u1'1u their part of the zzontmcl. and also stated that they will 6Xt'.1'CiSB such rights as are available Lo \/ /«E git: ,1) C _._._ rrn '. It"-b1.ZC$(..-L U1 ﬁJ.£). 'JVUb.D'5' 2i them uzudcr law, did not stop the ruiming Qt T the: l't:ptl(iia{i0Il by way of fu1'f(;:il;u11: dt'.fc1dva1ict;--"s-ziiitiiiiit, the limitatioii runs its full 'i'lie1'cti2i1§_;' 3 suits, viz., 0.S.Nos. 6<.;72;f19§;rs,y (M23; 1996 and 6974,/1996, wliich wc11;...1'1i_t:1t 3 years Article 54 of Uv1('i.~.ii3it;11(::i(itlJit§i'.:»Vi§L}: i;i3i1itatio11'Act, 1963 have to hp.' X by limitation and coiiscqueiitlyii Jitlic tiial Court that the _I'rt:.t_fi; Vliinitatiuii is held. justified, (July in 194, far 0.3.426/96, 427/96 315 6342/95

-posititm diiTc1'e11t. Rcspoiitleiits adinittedly did Imt itlic BDA for issue of N00 for alienation of the " ~,a(g1'cc111e11t a. 12.2: r 9 0 14. mt; 'p()1l(.I(ﬁ1i hat: nut. 1

-I 'I"'\_ , 'I"\ n iitfoimed the appellants about their obtaining of N00 for constructioli froin the EDA, even when they had \/ /r' 22 _t1 ,, 4 anti 25. :I'i'e1'3:<--..ie*Vi.i..:' is clear that the appellants we1'e_411o_i"A.t11e i' respondents having obtained ~°i'¢.;i'=.ee1ielj'Lit:1iiii.,t fmm the BDA till Mr. uieitiei .i'e'et to" V it stated that they 'ts; the defexxdalits obtaining 1'91' it the EDA, only when JDA between the defeiltdaiztei*;:D.'!]sji.VReniya~Hetnsilig Private Limited.

The 'Ve*h11e§;:e* it . -. . 1 . n 1 lltnu 1\{..|JI£)a\11nA..L)I uliehaiiezlged. V In iii' the Lmde1'tai<.ing given by the \i¢iiiie««'exeet1tj11g Ex. P 9 to 14, sale they shall obtain NOC ﬁ'o1u the BDA .w_it11i11_4'Viii;ttJi1tl1e period and tliey having not obtained the e':='ne nur they liavm" net iIhrf.iI'iil'*i} the a""euant.", H'C_a1111o'L be eolistzrued that the period of' liliiitation Riiommeneeas to operate [mm the date of execution of the sale agreement.e or immediately after the expily of 4 1110111115 tliereﬁnm i.e., from 11.04.1992. 11' the \.

" Iritiitt.

23 1'c:spo11dcnLs had Oblailltld the agreed "

BDA wiL'ui11 the period slip'Li1'a'L<:*.1A_ i:'Li_$,I'6i'.}£it'1i§,.% and 5.. they 11.4,.' L1i.[t_11'*:.I:.__1_.;d_ Ln: Sallie us ;_l..f1(': ' 1;}? _i__:' iiiliiéj x, appellants, iiﬁxillatioli wuuid fmm the date ol'obLaij1i;_1g t_xi""ilic~3.:'.§1gVi'1:g:d NOC aiid al'Lt:1' the same being made Fu1'l11c1' Lherc is no :sg)e¢i;Ji'-":3 (meg! iii!-:1'1'1.i(')'i--;l."t3d,_iI}.' the ag1't:t:111c11Ls, s11oLu[;iLt§§3ge'k is gtipﬁiated in Ex. P 9 an 14 is, 1.116 111011813, l'<3S].)O1l(1(:3IlLS had aglftfed Lu sfm' a1ic11ai:ion from the BDA. of iiulilaiiou can be lxeld to II! aji-r un- }i.3'tT1i'1IAii'€v'3I:i€_3rl--3 §..€I.'-'.JEJl.«J.a.{.e om, \.Iu1::11 Lg- 11-°...,icc:s L-:.=, P 16';---18,.f20,. Q2, 24 and 226 were sent and wtm: s<:1'vt':ci on =m«,~;ap;>i:11anu; and not tiiiﬂitil'. 111 this case, 21'-"1 part, of ' 54 of the Li1niLat.io11 Act, 1963 applies. As Lhcm nn 1.

isputt: that the said 11f.)l.iCt:5 were sent. only on .8. 993 O'! [uni Ep ill '.3 5:

9:

bi cc 5 ?§'' .''-'3..

CE' :.

hi' tr :1: '13' '1:

r:

:= L U I E |u-1 24.8.1993, O.S.N0.6342/95 ﬁled 011 "'i.CI1.1"95 and k 24 o.s.No.426 and 427 of 1996 ﬁled on 1.8.01..11:99£$;:'V'.é§ie:

within the period 0173 years f1'uu1.:ii1e..dal";: 'iés:1év¢,}1' the said notices and lmlzct: the 3._SL1il.S"L:a1111uL"

1;c:.1_i L- L.. b_.I'1v:_1 .._y }_....1'i<..l actioii 'L0 3116 as ag1'ccd:--i:5 fav;:aLi1'V:..£:):i':' ._piaiii[i'ﬂ"%sA"iE11 the said 3 suits only on the dcfclidants . 1993 and not earlier. of 1.11656 facts in 1%.:-*.spe.9e:L "4;-E f:,s.=2i.."f-i- a11d""};a.La c1'1'uIictmaiy 1161"

L. .4 mi ii1e",ca.usc-- us' in have comlntznccd on 11.04.1992 9£i;*.a;_l' 11,16 SL_1i[S"9Vto be b&:l1'l't2d by limilatiun. 3 'Si11(x§._.ﬂ1cg-9L1'ia1. Cuu1'["'i1é1s nut exalnilmd the 1nat.l.e1' with ";~;;pplicabilil,y of IimiLal.io11 in thé above uia1.Cuu1't, was not jusliﬁcd in holding that the A suits also as barred by li1uilaLio11. Since: the % ~..y¢I'iod of limitation to file suit. has cunlmclxced only on "V'a11d aI't.c1' 06.08.1993 and not earliczr to it and since tin:

n.

s.'.l..I':.t} Q Ln rilu 'IIJIIIJ }n.u.nvn "lug-I |n)';l':-:-rs I . u . . u .. 4...! ..I' E) -....-..,.._ 1.1. ' uu..u ;u:'-I.v\..- uuuu uzuu wxuuu l...I..l.C youuu U1 0 yﬁﬂlb E Isa we I'1'o1n the date of issuance of notice to the d€:f_{:11(iaIiit§ * " 1

L6,, 011 6.8.1993, it. cannot be llcldlihxat' '.1_1t":A Cunsequenﬂy, ifue ,;x;iai1§.a"'oi": iii Nos.426/96, 427/96 ankd_'%5342;9:g,?%A%% they were ready and wil:1ing_,':-!.o of cxonlzraut, 1'eq11i1'u:-3 to be cL>11S'id't:1-cdg, V 4'2;

15. .'E')11'L:31'i1.1gVinVE.0 A§2i' li1§§*agrttclutctnis at E)1.F'. to I by t11t:.pa1'iiés, 1.1(;wt in diéspuus. II. is also not in dispute 'V V. "H181!Viﬁitii»-.i=l1J13*:l3a11LSiiéiﬁi the 1'cqu:irt:d funds to coxnplctc PW 1 has deposed about Lhe ~ c I 1 . ' .~l..liﬁ sax: agizsch.-'c1;'..t'., er.-.:ha1:gt: of 1:ul.1cc-as, 'a\§aila1ji1i.Lty of funds, plai11l.ii'I's madiness and w'1'L'ling to com}__11t:l.e the salt: i.1'a11sacla'o11 c:t.c., Evidtzncc of PW 2 Lu % = about the capacity of the appellants, Lo pcrfoml the @:o1;11'acL. Pcrusal 01' Ex. P 31 L0 75 shows that, the appeiiaiica ham L ' -wit." '.0 cuziiplale the ta*.c 'Suit-.5:

conllactual obligatiolls is also not izo ;, A' Court on co115ide.1'aLio11 of the .:§w.r-:'.t_._J_vt:11oé;

P 1 to 35 and the admission of the conclusion that, the " 1'u1;d:s to LE6 under the 1991. '1'1'iaJ Court lugs. o'l'1'uI1des will not ostablisliigtlxo'1'oo;ii;i;oo§s:.s.wi1iing:uoss to pcri'o1111 the obﬁgauolxo "m_'_'1d.»:v1- IL 11:31.5 l_;t:l_t__1 that. I11l:31'ti . iioi Va'}':1i1.s:J'L_;_1_;u,.i.o w"iiugI1esS aiui gfiilliiilii and 1't'ql.li1't:d Lo proved like any other I'oc.:"t:.§&ih".'--.o'1'1vv1 c:' lxas htiltl that the plajnlzilfs have .4 'slept matter for a period of two years 311.31' A eé;>:t:.t_:Li_ut.)11 of 1.11:: .a«;a.,__2.,1_._.11;_.11I_..._' of es_|¢:. .11-- w..1't:. 1-_:L _ "i'11C i;ii1eLi to pe"i"o'1fr11 16 * part 0 V V " 9' u " ' agree111o:uLs. .\ /1 ./.' 27

16. The said ﬁndings of the trial Court. an: and contzrary to the mat.e1ialA svide;--n¢:c on j'i1*9£_:c)V1'ct;'.~ Rt.:s;-1it_1c:n,s 1-41 Ltndmtakcn to dlytaili 11¢" tibjcctit-ﬁ1~..V'VV' for alienation Lhouglt obtaiiicti, the saintiswzéis nut. intiluatcd by the 11-:spo11ds11t§s.' 'Q11 6.8.1993 rcspuiidtmts sliow__n....~' t.h!.1ai'I'N--:_"-diﬁiilclilialioll, to sait: dated .Eff:':= in the; = iii 1' notices 21, 23 and 25 have 1'CiL(:I't:1§.t3d t11é'i1t_»V1t::a.di1iess"a1ul willingness to coiupltste: "t.':~1<;Vs:-iit:5=t"t1ai:.sactidnm£i11d-had uptcd to continue. the n the 'piaii1LiiTs~' 'using alt aiong iwsatiy and wiiim' 'us it compltzte the contractual obligations. DW 'i1--:.:his cvidciicc has stated that the p1.ai11till's are l»1ai:i11Q, funds to ptircliasc the suit schedule pmpcrtics Court. After ittpudiatiull of the agittzineiits on "/1 F0 133 6.8.1993, plainuirs in ().S. Nos. 426/1996,. %}£§.7';/'_1E§§(é' E5 :d 6342 ,1 1995 lzad Hie" 1.1:: .--~;u._.s gfL>1' ~ucLfi'r:.t,_ a{__ izijunctioli wilfuixx the yVc-¢a1"s ptézjitjti of_.v}};i1_1i t1:iiiL$;:1."'~ Hence 11cg]igt:ucc, 11011-1'eadi1ViC:§xs and " ':.11iwi}1ii1g11c:ss, 03111101. be a.LtJ'ibutt:d Loﬂls: sz--§id§.})I'ai.1_i!;i1I':s. Appcllantts in RFA Nos.1129/2907, 1 1:as;%2o:;7 T a1..di1%i;:3*rk;2oo7, have they were to pt-:1'I'om1 l_l1t:i1' co11u'ac'§fua1 __'1'11.¢': said appt:lla1;t.s, had cxe1'cisecA1 Lh§i1' the conu*acI.s subsizsljng w11ilf:.;jSt:11di11g._Va, i;};¢::i;é1'1t:i§lyv11oLiccs and have also shown, "um. . vm...

1,ux:._? yuamoaanq; u IUU Lwu cfiyfc£331e§l;ai';zT:;::§.::'sL;21ti11g that, they have opted to conlizuut: V . tllcifsgxgx-?Vt::.§:11ii;:11L:s and they have funds, establish t.11t:i1'

--1few;li1_1c$S and willingnttess L0 pc1'I'o1'1n the CDl1L1'aL2L and that: D' icspulitlelxts having failed to pc1'1'u1111 t1;c:i1'

--._d.:._ -.. . .44.- -.. L-

::u.1uI1ts, mu :5 wI':1'(';' i' Cd i /, _,_,.,._. :3.' _n..

I J 0 Spbbillt at y cnfo1'ct: the cuzulracts. '1'hcest-3 aespctis 11131111: it clear Lhat the appellants in RFA Nos.1129, 1185 and 1137/ \ /T. y w 29 2007, were always ready and wi1li_ng.,l_.g) conlraczts and the ﬁlldillg of the ;'i~.1fia'l_ T~E:OLi1=t.,'"'ei1 aspect. of readiness and willii1g11ees,A1':eld. Liza: 4, 49.7 395' .s-111;! .§,';._g.=,:r_._;g {A 11395, =1-r"-- '1.-4; .v- -

.8. Nes.42(;._,l9b which sum; are witlliif' is not justjﬁeci. The 11t;i{ii11g that the plaintiffs in f_1'iZ7:}_:9f)_ and (3342/1995, were 11u1.~1'ead__y' "eu1d : ﬁvilﬁi-1g*--.t.o pezfa1 '1x1 their colxtractual eb}ig"{ie1"i_m5-'.l&~ L.V;e"a+,-;1*ee':::e§.}.Le of sale. The Llial L.,u1'!. has erred, 01i«.Vt11eVar;pe;:t":Jf readilxeses and wiiiingneese, 'iz1A in ().S. Nue.4'26[96,427/96 : In our view, in taking into

4 . 113::

~ mu. 1 Lu-u,r_u~~r , n.

coxiei.§ie1a1ieii'3--i_ﬂie l'{':(ZO1'(.iI< of the case, appellant in R.}~'.A ( \J "'*":"" 51?. N' 1}3'?'"? '?'1'''3 W 112.9 \..J'u , .l\uL'.-4: LIL!-

"'--.

-4 A II _p1gn'11u11s in 0.3. N0s.426/96, 4'2?'/'96 and 6342/' have proved that they were always ready and :~ willi11g to pelfuml their co11t1'ael.ua1 obligatiums and the - ;I.I.iLL- ﬁ__.d by them, being within the period of L /IA

-it 30 limitation, are e11iiLieLi 'Lo {he 1'eu-_.«£----. pe1'l'0:m1a11ce in the suits filed by=,t11e111,I Reggdigg Point N03:

17. 111 View 01' the the aforesaid 1'ee=..e(.n-:5, 19:69:16 Llial. su.-1:3. was jusliﬁed in dislllissiiig 6974 of 1996, as bH1'1'7;id 1 Couri. Iiiii, juetiued in disu1_i$si11gV.1i1ie'--e'ui_Ls«in 0.3 Nos. 426/96, 427/96 e1.;d" 'eitller barred by limitatieln 01' that the pls-_..1.11.i,1.-

-'5 have not proved their Ieadiuess and 9" . "W_i1iii1g12e$S,*~ib lieifuiiii ﬂ1ei1'ea:1...1':--.\.cLL.s.4.1 ubligaliolis. in view of the above ﬁiitiiiigs, "1'de1' as n RF%$ 1128/2007, 1132x2007 and 1133,'2007 and are dismissed, upholding the decree passed by the Lrial Court. dated in 0.3. Nee.

30.03.2337 597231995, 697311996 and 6974/1995 on the ground of bar of limitation, i.e, the suits are barred 1:-nu.-N ul-hr! by lluuuzuuxi. Ne \, Z.

-5 us 0-' '..... r: 1 "7 V' W -

Nun. 1139].')! , , 1 137/:07; i:v'..J.1[i= .. Di 1'.'-J

----r 2007 are hereby a]1ov}:té'c1.'~--gI71f;a=::.A ﬁzdgumcnt' A and dt.'.(J1'(3t3 passed i11=..1O.S.Nos--.. -A426/'96}, 427/96 and 6342 of 1'9.95;s,a_I'¢: 11c1:c;bv= ' aside. 0.3. Nos. ¢?»'2€~.,_/96, 4.2't'/96V'§i1idV.6V-342 of 1995 are ":eC1'w:é€1,. speciﬁc pc1'fo1'ma11cc of ag1_'_:_sE:z1;c;;L of «sale tilalcd 11.12.1991. "'Rcsp0ndent}s sna11 execute and 1't::gisLt:1' the. ?t.!«:&;:d,§. fa\.r:;u1' 91' the appellants in RFA NOS. .l.1:"2'.9,'.Qf'i."'_, 1135/07 and 1 £0? ie111;g,oi' i.IE1t:&1g1'et:111cIH.s of sa1e,v(ia1:£:d 1_1.1E.1.~'1991' --]Wit11ii1 a period of .f01.r.1"~ Lugiay. , _ 'L'u d1'a\v {E13 dtztzn-:c:/'5 in i_cI'1us 11c1'col' mt: facts i§11<i------a:i1cu111sla11ce of Lht: case, palties "in .§jos;%i%AL1.2%9/07, 1135/07 and 1137707 are di1'¢ci_.t§d to their 1'e:spccl.ivc costs Llnuugll out.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Pyari Kumari vs Kanthamma on 2 April, 2008

Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda