TIRUMAREDDI RAJARAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1963-9-1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 10,1963

TIRUMAREDDI RAJARAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The question to be answered by the Full Bench is formulated in these words : "Whether the consistent view as held in Venkatragayya Appa Row v. Sriramulu 17 Ind Cas 593 (Mad); Baiznath Lala v. Ramadoss, ILR 39 Mad 6 : (AIR 1915 Mad 405) and Alagappa Chettiar, 19 37 Mad WITNESS 465 (2) that only the pendency of the infructuous revision should be excluded under S. 14(1) of the Limitation Act, requires re-consideration in view of Rule 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules prescribing the period of 90 days for civil revision petitions or for any other reason, so as to exclude the entire period from the date of the adverse order to the date of disposal of the infructuous revision under the said provision of the Limitation Act."
(2.) For an appraisal of the issue that presents itself before us, it is necessary to recall a few material facts. The Rajah of Vizianagaram obtained a decree in S. C. S. No. 1098 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Vizakhapatnam, against one Hanumanthu, husband of the second respondent and the father of the third respondent herein. In execution of this decree, he brought the properties, the subject matter of this litigation, to sale and purchased them himself in the beginning of the year 1949. Subsequently, a sale-certificate was issued on 21-7-1949. After the abolition of the estates under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversions into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the Government in whom the whole of the estate vested under section 3(b) of the Act obtained delivery of possession of these properties.
(3.) The appellants herein filed an application under O. 21, Rules 100 and 101 C. P. C. claiming the properties at their own and seeking to dispossess the Government as representing the decree-holder-auction-purchaser. This application was rejected by the executing Court on 9-7-1953. Instead of having recourse to Order 21, Rule 103 C. P. C. the appellants filed a civil revision petition (C. R. P. No. 1863 of 1953) to the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 23-9-1953. This petition was dismissed on 18-10-1955 by the High Court presumably for the reason that it did not involve any question relating to jurisdiction within the connotation of Section 115, C. P. C.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.