Limitation act section 14 good faith/ bonafide /due deligenc
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 13 November 2018
This query is : Resolved
CASE DETAILS.
Entered into agreement of sale in 1962. Filed specific preformence suit OS NO 389/1969 Entered into fist compormise in 1976 for 21 acers. filed an EP NO 58 OF 1984. In this EP again entered into second compromise on 21-02-1985(Compromise decree) DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, and physical possision has been given JDR... and EP is closed.
Filed an application on 30-06-92.(MRO file No.C/7/1992) After compromise decree, DHR/Plaintiff, instead of approaching the executing court (IN THE COMPROMISE DECREE there is specific clause in case the JD fail to execute the sale deed you can execute the sale in the court ), MRO has registration of the sale deed, Basing on the said compromise decree, the MRO after collecting the Stamp duty and registration fee, with the consultation of the concerned Subregistrar and issued a certificate,
25-09-1993 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.
04-12-2000 As against the orders of RDO, the Revision Petitioners/Defendants have preferred the
present Revision. After due enquiry, the Joint Collector has dismissed the Revision and confirmed
the orders passed by the below revisional authorities. of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattdar Pass
15-10-2001. As against the said orders of joint Collector, 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.
07-02-2005 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.
SLP NO. 10907/2005. As against the said orders, the DHR/Plaintiff preferred this SLP and the SLP
is Dismissed on 13/10/2015.
My lawyer filed two petitions EA 744 to open EP 58/84 and EA 745 to execute the sale deed of the second compromise decree for 12 acres In the city civil court where this compromise decree executed. after the supreme court order in 2015.
The judge had dismissed the case on the grounds the petitioner/decree holder is not bonafide in prosecuting the proceeding.
Reasoning of the judge.
The Petitioner/decree holder did not even state as to why he has chosen to go before MRO(mandal revenue officer) though there was a specific clause in the Order/decree "that in case the judgement debtors did not execute the register sale deed in his favour he shell be at liberty to get executed the same through the COURT"
For section 14 limitation act our lawyer marked these judgements
Ghasi Rams case (1998) 6 SCC200
MP Steel corporation vs commissioner of central excise.
judgement debtors
Ketan V. Parekh vs Special Director,Dir.Of ... on 29 November, 2011
MY LAWYER TOLD IN THE ARGUMENTS THAT IN THE MEANTIME THE GOVERNMENT OF AP HAVE AMENDED THE ROR ACT. AND A PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE TO REGULARISE THE UN-REGISTERED SALES U/S 5-A OF THE A.P RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTEDAR PASSBOOK ACT 1971 AND RULES 1989 SECTION 5-A OF THE ROR ACT PROVIDES REGULARIZATION OF CERTAIN ALIENATIONS OR OTHER TRANSFERS OF LANDS WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS
"NOT WITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE ACT THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 THE REGISTRATION ACT 1908 OR ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. WHERE A PERSON IS AN OCCUPANT BY VIRTUE OF AN ALIENATION OR TRANSFER MADE OR EFFECTED OTHER WISE THAN BY REGISTERED DOCUMENT THE ALIENEE OR TRANSFEREE MAY WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. APPLY TO MRO FOR A CERTIFICATE DECLARING THAT SUCH ALIENATION OR TRANSFER IS VALID.
q1. whether the good faith /due diligence/bona fide decided on what factors?
q3 My lawyer told me to file revision in the high court
P. Venu
(Expert) 14 November 2018
Lengthy and complex facts. Matter requires professional consultation.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 17 November 2018
1. Anonymous author is neither entertained nor obliged by experts as per rule of this platform.
2. You have already engaged an able, competent and intelligent lawyer, why did you not approach him/ her? Why do you need second opinion except the fact it may be available FREE OF COST ?
3. Too long a story.
