VENKAPPA GURAPPA HOSUR
A
v.
KASAWWA C/0. RANGAPPA KULGOD
APRIL 3, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
B
Limitatio11 Ac~ 1963 : Article 54.
Suit-Dismissal for filing after expi1y of limitation period-Appellant's
claim that he had entered into a sale agreement with respondent on August C
9, 1959-In the mea11while suit filed by respo11de11t for possession of the said
properties-Suit decided in favour of respondent on November 9, 1971-0n
August 22, 1972 appellant issued notice to respondent-Appellant filed suit
on Novembe;· 5, 1972-Respo11dent denied execution of sale agreement-Held
mere issuance of notice does not stop the mnning of limitation period--Once
the same l1as began to nm it mns its full course-Appellant having filed the D
suit after the expily of three years from the date of knowledge of denial the
suit was ban-ed by limitat'0n.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2837 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.84 of the Karnataka High
Court in R.S.A. No. 646 of 1976.
Manoj Kumar Mishra for A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.
P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
F
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of the Karnataka High court, made on July 30, 1984 in Second G
Appeal No. 646 of 1976.
The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of the sale
agreement dated August 9, 1959 in respect of the land in Village Lingaur
for a consideration of Rs. 10,200. It is the case of the appellant that he paid
as part consideration a sum of Rs. 501 on the said date and a further sum H
579
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 3 S.C.R.
A of Rs. 700 on March 4, 1960. In the meanwhile, the defendant filed suit
No. 9/60 for possession of the said properties. The suit was decided in his
favour on November 9, 1971. The appellant, therefore, issued notice for
the first time on August 22, 1972. Thereon, the respondent denied execu-
tion of agreement. Then the appellant filed the suit on November 5, 1972.
B Thus, according to the plaintiff the suit was filed within limitation. The
respondent has denied the execution of the agreement of sale, but the
courts below have found that it is one of money transaction. It is, therefore,
clear from Suit No. 9/60 itself that he had asserted to be the owner of the
property and the property is unencumbered property. Therefore, no one
has a right to interfere with his possession. Thus, it could be seen that the
C suit document itself was denied as early as in 1960. As a consequence, mere
issuance of notice dated August 22, 1972 does not stop the running of
limitation period. Once the same has began to· run, it runs its full course.
Therefore, the suit having been filed after the expiry of 3 years from the
date of the knowledge of denial, by operation of Article 54 of the Schedule
D to the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The
High Court, therefore,. is right in dismissing the suit in the second appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex