RSA E\fo.i327 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD C C
DATED THIS THE 6'?" DAY OF FEBRUA§§Y':4£~{3'}--O
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTzC£: V:-:.\'}.|A:'{}'Am!N|'«@"'i':}:]V-;-'VT.'-..f:'.VV1
REGULAR sEc0NDvA1n23.EAL"N.of 1327C';?Véc§iQ5--.V
BETWEEN: H T
1. Basappa, A/fMa11a'pp"a_ , _
Kurvattigoudar, of Guttai, 1 .
Since deceased by his}.-...:I2s."
la) Parvatewwa, ~ _ V .
W / 0 Biasappé VKz1rva--£.iv€.goL1.dar»,
Singq de~ce'as*e:d by._41*1r=;_f only
AppelIVa1:t.fv5No.27_' .4
2. Kure{V'at'e--p}5a,V:.".HA:_:'w.CC"' *
S / o Basappa Kuravattjgoudar,
Age; 38 yéars,' Occ:\Agriculture,
R/:0 Guttal, 'Fq.TIjI§;1Veri--581 1 I0. ...APPELLAN T
(By Advocate)
A;-1\CTi1*: *
" V Chan'd1faiS.hekharappa,
-T S] 0 Mupplanna Bukkashetti,
' ..j1'%ge'iC"Maj0r, Occ: Agriculture,
_ R,_/To-Gruttal, Tq: Haveri-5811 10. WRESPONDENT
Sri. S.N.Banakar, Advocate)
RSA %\Eo.1327 of 2005
conclusion, the 181 Appeliate Court took note of various
payments received by the defendant even after
mentioned in the agreement of sale.
of the piaintiff was decreed as prayedfi
the trial Court’s judgment. V
5. I have heard the learnedcounsei the parties
and perused the records of this. “c–ajse”and the reasons
assigned by the.Courts”‘UelofW. ” I
6. This aclnifitting the appeal had
suhnstantdiaiouestions of law for its
consideration: *
..«.§:j’i)i’~Whether:thefindings ofathe 15f appellate
c§5é;zr£j”ho1dihg that the suit fiied by the
in time reversing the findings of
Court that the suit is barred by
it tithe, V is contrary to iaw and material on
i ‘A ‘_ record and the contents of EX.P.1.
2) Whether the findings of the 13? appellate
Court reversing the judgment and decree
«fir
RSA 510.1327 of 2005
: 11 :
C?7\.f.§.S’¢.c£,
Court has totally messed at the evidence __ and
misinterpreted the documents produced by the
Not only the finding on limitation issue .
1sv:_Appe1late Court is contrary to, the ‘Au
and the law bearing on the
period prescribed under of” “;Act, 0’ 0
but even the evidence appreciation ‘vagaviiost the
material on record recorded are
perverse in nature.._ submissions,
learned coun’sle.lV placed reliance on the
decisicjnslirep.e.rvted7}_ii: i995 so 945, ii) AIR 1995
so 21d(1′.,!li’ili)iAIé’:.i’I9Q7”–.iS:C:i3:751, iv) AIR 1997 so 2630,
and V},AIRi02Q0O.SCl”23£08 and a decision of the Apex
rendered Appeal No.4190 of 2000. Relying
of the law laid down in the
afoI*erneritio33ied decisions, learned counsel sought for
being allowed by setting aside the judgment
0 15′ Appellate Court and restoring that of the Trial
..Cdurt. As far as the possibility of refund of the earnest
3./J’
RSA N0.1327 of 2005
:13:
that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose and
considering the said date of Ex.I-“.13, the
18.04.1983 was well within three years’ tinaiéf prj§s¢£ib.é.dpp
in Article 54. It was his contention’that’l–.lI?artjll
54 applies to the case on hand.
of the appellant in receivingiipart after
the period inentione-d~..,_in l,lsubmissionvllmade is
that, by his ‘own condtict, had extended
the time to ,.e’:’::sci1te as such, the
question limitation does not
payments that were
made towards discharge of bank
loans and plaintiff had produced
show the payment made towards
therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is
limitation, if the above facts and
are taken into account. Learned counsel
referred to the evidence place on behalf of the
-plaintiff and number of witnesses examined in proof of
E?
*5
RSA No.1327 of 2005
: 16 :
11. Taking the first of the two substantial
questions of law raised for consideration, in the liglit of
the admitted facts as revealed from the
record, both the Courts have held that
proved agreement of sale
mentioned that in respect __of sale
property, the appellant and
the balance of Rs.l3′,i?;.{‘5:0/ by the
plaintiff before April, clear that the
date of been clearly
indicated””in s.é;1’e;a’t Ex.P.1. However, the
appellantreceived’:_c’certain.ipayments subsequent to the
agreementi’of_Vsalle.= aindiithese payments are established
splaintiff iibyimproducing documents at Exs.P.6 to
a:nd”»c;e1’tai:n1..other receipts having been produced by
th’e,:p1athti’t?t’bias well. In Exs.P.6 to 13.8 there is a
iii'”‘._’i”*referenc_e’ to the agreement of sale and last of the
A idocisiimexits is Ex.P.8 which is dated 31.05.1977. Beyond
transaction in respect of the other payments made
An’!
”
wk 9
RSA No.1327 of 2005
:17:
by the plaintiff /r nowhere the defendant 3 has
acknowledged the said amount by making refereri%g..ttQ
the sale agreement at Ex.P.1. Though the ~
placed certain receipts, it cannot. be if
it
receipts and the payments indicated’~’thea=ei_vy*e:fe._.i1′:..
continuation of the payrnertts’r1iade’ ‘ V
of sale. These documents indicatviondthat the
amount mentioned therieinii’ the plaintiff
towards part consideration due
to the the documents
wherein irefer}ence:7’§ViVs agreement of sale is
Ex.P.8,i’whi.ch is”dated.._:S1i05.1977. Therefore, the suit
ought. to heve i oetirifileti by the plaintiff either within
if iou!4CeJ~e.4 iw {Ilse
‘~ .three€years”i–from thewdate .of’agreement of sale itself or at
three years from the date of Ex.P.8, but
the»-.y_suit~ in fact, filed long after the period of
ii””–__i”‘liingitatio.ri’ and the filing of the suit in the year 1983 was
” _ aiso almost after six years i the last of the payments
mode as per Ex.I-9.8. The Trial Court considering all
‘J
RSA No.1327 of 2005
: 27 :
appeal is allowed and the judgment of the 1st Appellate
Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.
At this stage, before parting, it is to be x
that though the suit itself is barred A’
appellant, therefore, will not 155″ V
refund the amount receivepd_frorri»__
appellant has come refu.r_1i_d’~
received from the plaijritiff the part
of the appeilérlt _to:Vbeiplaéed on record.
sd/4
V’ 3 . H ….. .. 7