VUNDAVALLI RATNA MANIKYAM & versus V.P.P.R.N. PRASADA RAO

VUNDAVALLI RATNA MANIKYAM & versus V.P.P.R.N. PRASADA RAO

The High Court correctly applied Article 113 of the Limitation Act (not Article 54), held that the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 was executed and the plaintiff was put in possession, and therefore the suit for specific performance was not time-barred and should be decreed subject to the plaintiff paying Rs.15,00,000 to the defendants within eight weeks, upon which the defendants must execute the sale deed.

Parties
Appellants / Original Defendants: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam & Another; Respondent / Original Plaintiff: V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 25.07.2014 in A.s. No. 3511/1992
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Agreement to Sell, Article 113 of Limitation Act, Article 54 of Limitation Act, Possession, Procurement of Sale Deed
Specific Performance Limitation Land Acquisition Agreement to Sell Article 113 of Limitation Act Article 54 of Limitation Act Possession Procurement of Sale Deed

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam & Another

Appellants / Original Defendants

V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao

Respondent / Original Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 25.07.2014 in A.s. No. 3511/1992

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and whether Article 113 of the Limitation Act applied instead of Article 54
  2. 2 Whether the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 was executed and the plaintiff was put in possession
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent sale by the vendor's widow and the purchaser's plea of bonafide purchase without notice defeated the plaintiff's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly applied Article 113 of the Limitation Act (not Article 54), held that the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 was executed and the plaintiff was put in possession, and therefore the suit for specific performance was not time-barred and should be decreed subject to the plaintiff paying Rs.15,00,000 to the defendants within eight weeks, upon which the defendants must execute the sale deed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff (respondent) to pay Rs.1500000 to the defendants within eight weeks
  • On payment of Rs.1500000 the defendants are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff