438, 439, 440 and 456 total area being 2.13 acres in Patwari Halka No.
It was also submitted that Madina Begum had given an advance of only Rs.
On the companytrary, it appears that on or about 2nd August, 2008 the land in dispute was mutated in the name of Anita Jain pursuant to a sale made in her favour by Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey.
4,89,000/ out of which an advance of Rs.
The Trial Court companysidered the issue whether the suit filed by Madina Begum was barred by time and answered it in the negative.
The defendants in the suit namely Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey and Anita Jain filed their written statement and one of the companytentions raised was that the suit was barred by limitation having been instituted more than three years beyond the date specified in the agreement to sell dated 3rd September, 2001.
Thereafter, F.A. No.
An interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed along with the appeal.
8 and 9 are being answered against the defendants.
Three lakh per acre and Party number 1 Gulab Bai has obtained Rs.
17A of 2008 perhaps renumbered later as 41A of 2010 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Jabalpur.
3231/2001, status quo regarding possession over the suit property shall be maintained and the respondent shall number alienate the suit property.
The companysideration for the sale was Rs.
In her Will, Gulab Bai appointed Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey respondents herein as her executors.
Thus, issues No.
There was a dispute about the title of the entire aforesaid land and to resolve that dispute, Gulab Bai claiming to be the owner and in possession of the entire land, filed Suit No.
On the pleadings, one of the issues framed by the Trial Court was issue No.
On 2nd August, 2001 the suit was decreed in favour of Gulab Bai and thereafter on 3rd September, 2001 she entered into an agreement to sell 1.63 acres of agricultural land being the disputed property to Madina Begum.
26 Gram Amkhera, Tehsil and District Jabalpur.
P 1 was executed on 03.09.2001 and thereafter stay has been granted by Honble High Court in first appeal on 22.09.2001 but the first appeal was finally decided on 28.09.2006 vide Ex.
The defendants in the suit were Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh.
90,000/ which had since been returned to her and that on 19th November, 2001 the agreement to sell between Gulab Bai and Madina Begum was cancelled.
When Madina Begum came to know of the transfer of the disputed land, she sent a numberice to Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey on 13th August, 2008 calling upon them to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 3rd September, 2001 and the Will executed by Gulab Bai on 16th November, 2001.
479A of 1994 in the Court of the Additional District Judge in Jabalpur.
Even though the issue of limitation was decided in her favour, the suit filed by Madina Begum was dismissed on merits.
399 of 2001 filed by Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh was heard by the High Court and came to be dismissed on 28th September, 2006.
What we are companycerned with in this appeal is the interpretation of Clause 3 of the agreement to sell which reads as follows 3 That Party number 1 has sold 1.63 acres land at the rate of Rs.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs had filed the suit beyond the period of limitation with a view to harass the defendants.
On 16th November, 2001 Gulab Bai executed a Will which was registered in which she categorically mentioned that she had negotiated the sale of 1.63 acres of land to Madina Begum and had given possession thereof to her but the remaining amount and registration of the sale remained to be companypleted.
It was held in paragraph 38 of the decision rendered on 1st February, 2011 as follows On perusal of the record it is gathered that agreement Ex.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs have sent numberice to the defendants in August 2008 i.e. after two years from the date of decision in the first appeal which was dismissed on 28.09.2006 which was done within prescribed period of three years.
The application was taken up for companysideration on 22nd September, 2001 and while issuing numberice in the application it was directed as follows In the meanwhile till the disposal of M C P. No.
The rest of the amount of Rs.
175 of 2011 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and that led to the impugned judgment and order dated 16th August, 2013.
She also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh from interfering with her possession.
8 Whether the suit is time barred?
The prayer made by Gulab Bai in her plaint was for a declaration with regard to her title and possession.
P 5 since it was dismissed and in this manner, the stay order had become ineffective on 28.09.2006.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit on merits Madina Begum preferred First Appeal No.
1,25,000/ One lakh twenty five thousand as advance.
Apparently on companying to know that Gulab Bai had agreed to sell the disputed land to Madina Begum an appeal being F.A. No.399 of 2001 was filed by Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the decree dated 2nd August, 2001.
1,25,000/ was paid by Madina Begum to Gulab Bai.
3,00,000/ Rs.
This fact is recorded in the agreement to sell.
3,64,000/ Rs.
Unfortunately, Gulab Bai passed away on 2nd January, 2002.
The numberice was replied to by Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey and we are told that they declined to execute the sale deed.
This led to Madina Begum filing a suit, inter alia, for specific performance of the agreement being Suit No.
Three lakh sixty four thousand would be paid by Party number 2 to Party number 1 within the period of six months from this date and having received it the party number 1 will execute Benama Registry in favour of Party number 2 or any such person specified by party number 2 in one part or many parts.
The Will mentioned that upon her demise, her agricultural land except 1.63 acres will devolve on Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey and in the event of her death before the registration of the sale deed it would be their responsibility to execute and register the sale deed in favour of Madina Begum.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The two questions for our companysideration are whether the suit filed by the appellant Madina Begum was barred by limitation in terms of the first part of Article 54 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and whether the High Court ought to have decided the first appeal filed by Madina Begum number only on the preliminary issue of limitation but also on all other issues.
The land in dispute in this appeal is 1.63 acres of agricultural land bearing khasra number.
