N RAMALINGA NAINAR Vs. NOOR MOHAMMED SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.333 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirukoilur is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for specific performance on the ground that the second respondent, the owner of the property agreed to sell the same by way of oral agreement on 6.10.1969. Followed by the agreement, she also executed the sale deed on 16.10.1969. Since she refused to come to the Sub-Registrar's office for registration, the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.422 of 1970 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thirukoilur under Sec.77 of the Indian Registration Act for compulsory registration of the sale deed. THE first respondent was impleaded, since he has entered into an agreement of sale with the second respondent, subsequent to the oral agreement entered into between the second respondent and the appellant/plaintiff. While the suit O.S.No.422 of 1970 was pending, the first respondent filed O.S.No.7 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore against the appellant and the second respondent for specific performance of the agreement entered into between himself and the second respondent. At the instance of the respondents, O.S.No.422 of 1970 was transferred to Sub-Court, Cuddalore, where both the suits were tried and suit O.S.No.422 of 1970 was dismissed and O.S.No.7 of 1970 filed by the first respondent was decreed. As against the same, the appellant filed appeals A.S.Nos.433 and 434 of 1974 on the file of District Court, South Arcot District, Cuddalore. THE learned District Judge allowed both the appeals by judgment and decree dated 13.7.1979. Pursuant to the said decree, the appellant ought to have submitted the document for registration within 30 days from the date of judgment. As the appellant was not well, he could not present the document for registration within the time prescribed under Statute. However, he presented the document for registration on 16.11.1979 before the Sub Registrar. As the statutory period of limitation expired, the Sub Registrar refused to register the document. THE appellant filed I.A.No.86 of 1980 for extension of time for presenting the document for registration. THE said I.A. was dismissed. Hence the present suit has been filed for specific performance.

(2.) THE second respondent remained ex parte.

(3.) AT the time of admission of the second appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated: