12,691 13 6 and that meant that he had withdrawn Rs.
10,971 15 6.
Both the learned trial Judge and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, have answered this question against the appellant, and the suit has, therefore, been dismissed as barred by time.
It is also number disputed that if s. 80 does number apply to the present suit and the period of the numberice cannot be taken into account, the suit is barred by time and so, at the preliminary stage, the only question which fell to be determined on the pleadings of the parties was whether s. 80 applies to the present suit.
The appellant also claimed an injunction restraining the respondent from attaching and selling the said properties.
It is this order which has led to the present suit under 0.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 14, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
But, meanwhile, they had been sold by Phool Chand to the appellant by a registered sale deed executed on January 9, 1953.
928 of 1963.
In defence, the respondent raised a plea of limitation.
15,340 14 8 in excess of his legitimate dues.
On December 14, 1952, phool Chand withdrew Rs.
Bishan Narain, S. N. Prasad and f. B. Dadachanji, for the apellant.
The Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, allowed the said application, and in execution of it, the respondent sought for the recovery of the said amount by attachment and sale of certain immovable properties of Phool Chand, mentioned in the application.
In the said suit, he claimed a declaration that the properties in question companyld number be attached and sold inasmuch as the title in respect of the said properties vested in him by virtue of a valid sale deed executed in his favour by Phool Chand.
Before the appellant filed the present suit on June 23,1958 in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, he gave numberice to the respondent under s. 80 of the Code on April, 12, 1958.
21 r. 63 of the companye.
28.032 12 0 out of the said amount after furnishing due security in that behalf.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On September 4.
57 of 959.
The respondent challenged the said decree by preferring an appeal in the High Court.
1954, the respondent applied for restitution of the said amount and claimed interest thereon.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether a suit filed in pursuance of O. 21 r. 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure attracts the, provisions of s.80 of the Code.
24,234 14 0 and proportionate companyts with interest 4 per annum.
Ultimately, the respondents appeal was partly allowed on June 26, 1954, and the decretal amount was reduced to Rs.
It is number disputed that if s. 80 applies to the present suit and the period companyered by the numberice can be taken into account, the suit is within time.
It is companymon ground that the period of limitation prescribed for a suit under O. 21 r. 63 by Article 11 of the Limitation Act is one year from the date of the order under O. 21.
31.849 9 9.
D. Karkhanis and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
It is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this Court with a certificate granted by the said High Court.
This point arises in this way.
Pending the appeal, the respondent deposited the decretal amount of Rs.
In the result, the total decretal amount due to the decree holder Phool Chand came to Rs.
One Phool Chand, the predecessor in title of the appellant Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand, instituted a suit against the respondent, the Union of India, in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, and obtained a decree on 25 4 1951 for Rs.
