Can limitation act section 14 apply to my case

Raghu ponnala (Querist) 24 October 2015 This query is : Resolved
CASE HISTORY

Sri B.Ashok Rao. …DHR/Plaintiff.
V.Jaya Chandra Reddy & others. ... JDRS/Defendants.

01. 17-09-1962. The father of the Respondents executed an Agreement of Sale to an extent of Ac.82-89 gts for a total Sale consideration of Rs.18,000/- and that the purchaser have paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- on the same as advance.

02. 28-09-1971 (O.S.No.381/1969) The Plaintiff have filed a suit for Specific performance of the above agreement before the Vth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 28-09-1971.
The Respondents herein have offered to give 20 acres and

03 20-07-1976 CMP No.3738/1976 in (CCCA No. 190/72) After dismissal of the above suit, the Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.While pending the said Appeal, both the parties have
Entered into a compromise (1st compromise) and wherein, 20.39 guntas to the Appellant/plaintiff.

04. 21-02-1985 (2nd Compromise decree) when the Respondents have failed to honour their commitment as per the above 1st compromise decree, the DHR/Plaintiff filed the present E.P.No. 58/1994 before the executing court for execution.In this E.P. also, again both the parties have entered into another compromise and as per the 2nd compromise, the DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, after foregoing 8 acres 39 guntas.

05. 30-06-92.(MRO file No.C/7/1992) After 2nd compromise decree, DHR/Plaintiff, instead of approaching the executing court, for registration of the sale deed, even though there is a clause in the said 2nd compromise decree, approached the Mandal Revenue Officer of the concerned along with the said compromise decree, filed a petition under Section 5 A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 for regularization. Basing on the said compromise decree, the MRO after collecting the Stamp duty and registration fee, with the consultation of the concerned Sub-registrar, has issued a certificate, stating that the alienation is valid.

06. 25-09-1993 (RDO file No.L/580/1993) after issuing the above certificate, the
petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present appeal before the concerned Revenue Divisional Authority claiming that the MRO has not given any notice before issuing the said certificate and also the MRO has no jurisdiction to entertain the said case.The RDO opinioned that since it is a decree passed by a civil court and that the MRO has rightly passed the said order and hence there is no need to middle with the orders of the lower court and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

07. 04-12-2000 (Joint collector fileno D5/8397/1994.)As against the orders of RDO, the
Revision Petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present Revision. After due enquiry, theJoint Collector has dismissed the Revision and confirmed the orders passed by the below revisional authorities. In its order, the JC has disclosed about the implementation of court decrees as per Rule 27 (4) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattdar Pass Book Rules. And thus the orders of the MROare correct.

08. 15-10-2001. Single judge of High court (W.P.No. 3300 of 2001) As against the said orders of jointCollector, the Revision Petitioners/defendants have filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court has confirmed the orders of below authorities and dismissed the Writ Petition. In its orders, the High Court has disclosed that the plea of not issuing notice cannot be raised at this point of time and the revisional authorities have rightly passed the orders as per the Act.

09. 07-02-2005(Division Bench HC) WritAppeal 1812/01.As against the said order, the Revision Petitioners preferred this Writ Appeal before the Division Bench. In this, the Division Bench has quashed all the orders passed below authorities and also set aside the orders of the High Court, Single Judge.

10. SLP NO. 10907/2005. As against the said orders, the DHR/Plaintiff preferred this SLP and the SLP is Dismissed on 13/10/2015

Q1. Can i go to the lower court and File EP on compromise decree of 1985 and invoke the limitation act section 14 . get the exemption of the time spent From MRO TO Supreme court.?

Q2. As the physicall position of the land give to the decree holders in the compromise decree can the JDRS clam the position ?

Q3. what is meaning of "limitation bars remedy but does not destroy/ extinguish the right" in the present context.

Q4. As the compromise decrees as been executed by the MRO because of the provision ROR act ie section 5-A of the act he had taken the registration fee and stamp duty and gave the title to me. now

My question yes i had used the provision of ROR act in stead of EP in the lower court. As i am getting the same benefit. If it was wrong court MRO would had rejected my application or even RDO would had rejected my application still i had time to to go the LOWER TO execute. AND even the joint collect had not rejected my application and even HIGH COURT had not rejected my application . HOW CAN I GO TO THE LOWER COURT TO FILE EP WHEN I HAD GOT WHAT I WANT FROM MRO BECAUSE OF THE PROVISION OF ACT. SO TEL ME KNOWN HOW TO GO ABOUT

Follow Query

Report Abuse