S. MURALIKUMAR Vs. MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff who lost his suit for specific performance before the Courts below.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint is that the appellant entered into an agreement with the 1 st respondent regarding the suit property on 23.10.1996. As per the agreement of sale he paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- and for the payment of balance of Rs.5,000/-, 15 months time was granted. The agreement for sale was duly registered. The plaintiff paid the balance of Rs.5,000/- on 27.10.1996. The 1 st respondent handed over the original documents on receipt of the entire sale consideration and also handed over the possession of the property. When he approached the 1 st respondent for execution of sale deed she delayed the process stating her family problem and misunderstanding with her husband kept postponing the registration of the sale deed. While so, in the year of 2009, the 2 nd defendant along with his men came to the suit property and tried to take possession of the suit property. When he approached the 1 st respondent to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement dated 27.10.1996, she evaded to execute the sale deed. However his possession of the suit property given towards the part performance is protected under Section 53A Transfer of Property Act. Later he came to know that the 2 nd defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 1999 against the 1 st defendant for specific performance based on the fake agreement for sale and got a decree in his favour on 04.07.2006. Through the said sale deed and Court decree, the 2 nd defendant cannot have any right over the suit property. Hence sought for specific performance and injunction.

(3.) The 1 st defendant, the vendor of the appellant filed written statement sailing with the appellant. The 2 nd defendant in his written statement questioned the maintainability of the suit for specific performance on the ground of limitation and also contested that the possession of the suit property was never with the appellant to take umbrage under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.