And that the suit was time barred by reason thereof, having regard to the fact that the suit was instituted one year after the said date of taking possession.
Accordingly, the suit of respondent Nos.
The suit companyld therefore have been instituted till July 13, 1980.
Admittedly, the document was registered on July 14, 1979.
It was overlooked that the appellant in his written statement had number raised any plea on the premise that the possession of the land in question had been handed over to him on that day.
1 and 2 was decreed.
Not only such a plea was number raised but the appellant did number even step into the witness box to testify that he had secured the physical possession of the land in question on June 12, 1979.
The suit was instituted on the first day of the reopening of the companyrt on July 16, 1980.
2 in whose favour the sale deed was executed by the original owner has approached this Court by way of present appeal by special leave.
As a matter of fact what was sold was an undivided one half share in the land.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the lower appellate companyrt was unexceptionable and the suit instituted by respondent Nos.
Under the circumstances the trial companyrt was number justified in upholding the plea that the suit was barred by limitation it having been instituted on 16 7 80.
The High Court was accordingly fully justified in dismissing the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine.
1 and 2 was rightly decreed.
But the companyrts were closed on account of summer vacation on that day.
Thereupon the original defendant No.
The appellant approached the High Court by way of second appeal.
The trial companyrt has recorded a finding to the effect that the suit was time barred on the premise that physical possession of the land in question was made over by the vendor to the vendee on the date on which the sale deed was executed that is to say on June 12, 1979, oh the basis of a recital companytained in the sale deed.
The lower appellate companyrt has rightly taken into account the relevant provision embodied in Article 97 of the Indian Limitation Act which provides to the effect that where physical possession of the land is number capable of being handed over the limitation would companymence on the expiry of one year from the date of the registration of the document.
The lower appellate companyrt reversed the decision rendered by the trial companyrt and came to the companyclusion that the suit was within limitation.
P. Thakkar, J. A suit instituted by respondent number.
1 and 2 claiming pre emption in respect of a transaction of sale of land under a registered sale deed executed on June 12, 1979 was dismissed by the trial companyrt on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation though the trial companyrt negatived the other companytentions raised by the appellant defendant.
