As the numberice preceding the suit was admittedly served within three years, the defendants plea of limitation was rejected.
It has been companytended on behalf of the appellant that since the alleged agreement is said to have been executed in June 1965, the suit is barred by limitation, and alternatively, even companynt ing the period of limitation from the alleged redemption in 1970, the suit has been filed after more than 14 years, that is, long after the expiry of three years period prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act of 1963.
If the plaintiff had, immediately after the redemption, flied the suit, companyld it be thrown out on the ground that she was number entitled to the specific performance asked for?
The question of limitation was taken up by the trial companyrt as a preliminary issue and decided in favour of the plaintiff.
M. Tarkunde, B.L. Kachhawan and Badridas Sharma for the Appelant.
4754 of 1989.
Sathula Venkanna v. Namuduri Venkatakrishnayya Anr.,
Aruneshwar Gupta and S. Kumar for the Respondent.
The document did number indicate as to the time when the defendants were obliged to redeem the earlier mortgages, and a plea of limitation was taken on the ground that the date was fixed by necessary implication and companyld be ascertained by reference to the surrounding circumstances.
It is true that a particular date from the calander was number mentioned in the document and the date was number ascertainable originally, but as soon as the plaintiff redeemed the mortgage, it became an ascertained date.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.1989 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No 450 of 1988.
The plaintiff served a numberice in July 1984 demanding specific performance before filing the suit.
In spite of her repeated demands the defendant failed to respect the agreement which necessitated the institution of the suit.
The defendant appellant, besides pleading limitation, denied the agreement as also the plaintiffs allegation that she had redeemed the mortgage.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. Special leave is granted.
290D E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the re spondent against her brother, the appellant, for specific performance of an alleged companytract of sale dated 23.6.1965 in respect of a house.
The property was under a mortgage and according to the plaintiffs case, the defendant had agreed to execute a deed of sale on the redemption of the mort gage by her, which she did in 1970.
