Posts

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

As per Order 21 Rule 102 of C.P.C. nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit. Having considered the scope of Rule 102 of Order 21 of CPC it was held in VEERABHATHINI JANARDHAN v. TERALA RAJAIAH (since died) Per L.R.[4] by one of us (G.Rohini, J) that the petitioner therein who was the transferee pendente lite cannot maintain an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC. The same principle is attracted to the case on hand since the appellants are claiming title and possession on the basis of an alleged transfer that took place during the pendency of O.S.No.8 of 1996. Hence on that ground also they cannot maintain the applications under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold on Point No.1 that the claim petitions filed by the appellants herein under 21 Rule 97 of CPC are not maintainable and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same. Point No.2:

Kambalapalli Village of Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal = As could be seen from the fresh order passed by the reference Court dated 13.07.2006 (marked as Ex.A.5), the compensation was enhanced from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre for category-I and category-II lands respectively on the basis of Ex.A3, which is a certified copy of the judgment in A.S.No.80 of 1994, dated 15.10.1996 relating to the adjacent village, which was also acquired for the same purpose.- Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Court below is hereby enhanced for category-I lands from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre and for category-II lands from Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre. It is also made clear that the appellants are entitled to other statutory benefits as provided under law.