THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR City Civil Court Appeal No.202 of 2010 Dated:- 16th June, 2011 Between:- Smt.Medala Anasuya and another Appellants AND P.Padma Rao and others Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR City Civil Court Appeal No.202 of 2010 JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2007 passed in I.A.No.4391 of 2006 in O.S.No.94 of 2006 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the Original Suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below. 3. The plaintiffs instituted a suit being O.S.No.94 of 2006 before the Court below for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land admeasuring 616 square yards situated at Zamistanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad, said to have been executed by the defendants on 13.02.1999. It is their case that the defendants represented that they had filed O.S.No.36 of 1999 for recovery of land admeasuring 46 square yards out of the total land of 616 square yards which was in possession of the third parties and that they have assured that the entire area of 616 square yards will be registered in their name. It is also their case that relying upon the words of the defendants, they have been waiting for the disposal of the main suit and that ultimately, the said suit was decreed by the judgment dated 27.02.2004 and that the suit is within the period of limitation from the date its institution. The defendants filed I.A.No.4391 of 2006 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that the said suit was barred by limitation. 4. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by his order dated 17.10.2007, allowed the said I.A. holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred this appeal to set aside the impugned order. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the Court below has not taken into consideration the earlier litigation which was pending between the defendants and the third parties and that the plaintiffs could not have instituted the suit during the pendency of the suit. 6. We have perused the entire material on record. The cause of action coloumn, which clinches the issue, reads as under:- “Cause of action:- The cause of action for the suit arose on 17.12.1998, when the defendants received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as a token advance of sale consideration and also on 13.02.1999 when the plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale on requisite stamp paper by paying Rs.4,50,000/- thus making total of Rs.5 lakhs on the date of entering into regular agreement of sale and subsequently on 08.10.1999 when the defendants issued notice to the defendants informing them that the agreement of sale dated 13.02.1999 stands cancelled and the amount of Rs.5 lakhs received by the defendants from the plaintiffs stands forfeited and on 26.10.1999 when the plaintiffs got issued reply notice and subsequently on 27.02.2004 when the suit (O.S.No.36 of 1999) O.S.No.293 of 2001 stands disposed of in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to put the plaintiffs in possession of the property within 3 months from the date of the decree on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and subsequently every day.” 7. The above text extracted from the plaint itself reveals that the defendants issued notice on 08.10.1999 informing the plaintiffs that the agreement of sale dated 13.02.1999 stands cancelled and that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs received by them from the plaintiffs stands forfeited. To that notice, the plaintiffs issued a reply on 26.10.1999, which clearly go to show that the plaintiffs have received notice from the defendants cancelling the alleged agreement of sale. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs have ample knowledge about the notice issued by the defendants and the fact that the limitation starts running from 26.10.1999. Even if the defendants had promised that they would execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs soon after disposal of the suit in O.S.No.36 of 1999 with effect from the date of agreement entered into between both the parties, but the subsequent notice issued by the defendants’ cancelling the alleged agreement of sale dated 13.02.1999 clearly shows that the cause of action arose in the year 1999 itself. Admittedly, the suit has been filed on 15.10.2005. Thus, it is very clear that the suit is barred by limitation. Moreover, the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.36 of 1999 is only 46 square yards of land whereas the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.94 of 2006 is 616 square yards of land. Even if a part of the entire property is in dispute, nothing prevented the plaintiffs from agitating their rights in respect of the remaining land of suit schedule property. 8. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the reasoned judgment of the Court below. The appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed without any order as to costs. _____________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 16th June, 2011 Bvv