CHAND JAIN Vs. HARISH JHAMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been made by the Defendants No. 1 and 3 under order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC read with Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 making a prayer for rejection of plaint on the ground that suit was barred by limitation and was not maintainable.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that Defendant No. 1 Harish Jhamb and his wife Amrit Lata Jhamb (since deceased) (hereinafter called as vendors) entered into an Agreement to sell on 6th December, 1995 in respect of Property No. S-29 Green Park Extension, new Delhi with Mr. A. L. Chopra and Mr. Raj Vir (initial vendees) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (one crore fifty lac ). Mr. A. L. Chopra and mr. Raj Vir paid a sum of Rs. 4 lac as earnest money to the vendors at the time of entering into the agreement and they paid another Rs. 1 lac subsequently. However, the Sale Deed was not executed by the vendors in favour of initial vendees. Subsequently, initial vendees assigned their right under this agreement to Sell, in favour of the Plaintiff by receiving a sum of Rs. 6 lac on 6th February, 1997. The Plaintiff has now filed this suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 6th December, 1995. The Defendants have raised objections that the suit was barred by limitation as well as that there was no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and Defendants.

(3.) I have heard Counsel for both the parties. In view of Section 130 of the Transfer Property Act and section 15 (b) of Specific Relief Act, an assignee can maintain a suit in his own name. Supreme Court in Shyam Singh v. Daryao Singh AIR 2004 SC 348 had considered the implication of provision of