http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: VENKAPPA GURAPPA HOSUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KASAWWA C/O RANGAPPA KULGOD

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:                Hon’ble Mr.Justice K. Ramaswamy                Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.P. Wadhwa (Manoj Kumar  Mishra) Adv.  for A.S.  Bhasme,  Adv  for  the appellant P.R. Ramasesh, Adv. for the Respondent                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  learned Single  Judge of  the Karnataka  High Court, made on July 30, 1984 in Second Appeal No.646 of 1976.      The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated August 9, 1959 in respect of the land in Village Linganur for a consideration of Rs.10,200/-. It is  the case  of the  appellant  that  he  paid  as  part consideration a  sum of  Rs. 501/-  on the  said date  and a further sum  of Rs.700/- on March 4, 1960. In the meanwhile, the defendant  filed suit No.9/60 for possession of the said properties. The  suit was  decided in his favour on November 9, 1971.  The appellant,  therefore, issued  notice for  the first time  on August  22,  1972.  Thereon,  the  respondent denied execution  of agreement. Then the appellant filed the suit on  November 5,  1972. Thus, according to the plaintiff the suit  was filed  within limitation.  The respondent  has denied the  execution of  the agreement  of  sale,  but  the courts below have found that it is one of money transaction. It is,  therefore, clear  from Suit  No.9/60 it self that he had asserted  to be  the  owner  of  the  property  and  the property is  unencumbered property.  Therefore, no one has a right to  interfere with  his possession.  Thus, it could be seen that the suit document itself was denied as early as in 1960. As a consequence, mere issuance of notice dated August 22, 1972  does not  stop the  running of  limitation period. Once the  same has  began to  run, it  runs its full course. Therefore, the  suit having been filed after the expiry of 3 years  from  the  dated  of  the  knowledge  of  denial,  by operation of  Article 54  of the  Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963,  the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The High Court,  therefore, is  right in  dismissing the suit in the second appeal.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2