SRI ALLURI SATYANARAYANA Vs. RAMINEEDI RAYALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is one of limitation. The suit out of which it arises was instituted originally for a declaration that the sale of 25 acres of land which forms portion of patta No. 74 was illegal and invalid. But as during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had succeeded in getting possession of the property, the suit was allowed to be converted into one for possession. The contention raised on behalf of the defence was that the suit was barred by Art. 12 (d) or Art. 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. The trial Court held that the suit was barred under Art. 14 of the Limitation Act. This view did not find favour with the learned District Judge of East Godavari on appeal who held that the suit was not barred by either of these articles and remanded the case for fresh disposal on the other issues that had not been determined by the trial Court. The defendant has consequently come up to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) The defendant is the proprietor of Surasaniyanam estate. A portion of this estate (150 acres in area) was occupied by Rayappa Paritulu as a ryot. He appears to have committed default in regard to the payment of rent for fasli 1333 (1923) in respect of 25 acres out of that area. A notice was issued in 1925 under Section 11.2 of the Estates Land Act by the defendant for bringing these 25 acres to sale in realisation of his dues. Rayappa Pantulu contested the defendant's right to sell the property under Section 112 of the Estates Land Act and brought a suit (R.S. No.26 of 1925) for that purpose in the Court of the Sub-Collector of Rajahmundry. This suit was dismissed on the 28 August, 1926, and an appeal from that decree was also dismissed. The trial Court stated in its judgment that it was dismissed on the 17 March, 1927. The appellate Court only referred to the month of March, 1927, in which the appeal was dismissed but did not mention the date. There is no doubt that it was dismissed before the 31 March, 1927, as a revised decree. (Ex. XIX) was passed on the 31 March, 1927. No objection was taken to the statement of fact by the trial Court that the appeal was dismissed on the 17 March, 1927 and in the absence of any objection on behalf of the appellants, I am inclined to accept that date as the one on which the appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court.

(3.) It appears that Rayappa Pantulu had mortgaged the 150 acres in Patta No. 74 and that property was sold in execution of the mortgage decree. It was purchased by the plaintiff's agent on behalf of the plaintiff on the 8 January, 1929, and the sale was confirmed on the 24 July of that year.