P A THANGARAJAN Vs. G ANNADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O.S.No.284 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance directing defendants 1 to 7 to execute and register the sale deed as per document dated 30.3.2005. THE case of the respondents/plaintiffs as seen in the plaint is that the first defendant agreed to sell the property of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/= and the entire sale consideration was paid by the first plaintiff and on 30.3.2005, a sale deed was executed on Rs.20/= stamp paper and it was agreed that the sale deed would be presented for registration by paying the balance stamp duty on an auspicious day fixed by the first plaintiff and both the parties agreed for the same. THEreafter, the first defendant refused to register the sale deed and therefore, the suit was filed. THE first defendant filed I.A.No.1042 of 2008 under order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not show any cause of action and it is barred by limitation.

(3.) MR.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even according to the plaint allegation, a sale deed was executed on 30.3.2005 on a stamp paper and admittedly, it was not written on duly stamped papers and now, they want to enforce that document to get a relief of specific performance and that document cannot be received in evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as it was not duly stamped. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the document dated 30.3.2005 cannot be construed as a sale agreement and it is an executed contract and only remedy available to the person is to present the document for compulsory registration as per the provisions of the Registration Act and that has to be done within the period stipulated by the Registration act and having waited for more than the period prescribed for presenting the document, a suit for specific performance cannot be entertained and according to him, there is nothing to be enforced as per the document dated 30.3.2005 as it is an executed contract.