RAJAMANI AMMAL Vs. NEELAMBAL AMMAL ALIAS NEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 2053 of 1988 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras has preferred this Second Appeal against the reversing judgment and decree in A.S. No. 291 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. THE said reversing judgment set aside the decree for specific performance granted by the trial court and dismissed the suit. THE specific performance asked for is with reference to Ex. A1 sale agreement dated 15.5.1974 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, for sale of the suit immovable property for a sum of Rs. 11,500/- six month's time was stipulated under Ex. A1 for the execution of the sale deed. THE suit was filed on 26.2.1988.

(2.) THE lower appellate Court has inter alia held that the suit is barred by limitation and that it is also hit by Section (16)c of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) BUT, as I have already pointed out, the court below has also held that the suit is barred by limitation and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act also has not been complied with by the plaintiff. Taking up the first of the abovesaid findings that the suit is barred by limitation, I posed the question to learned counsel for the appellant that even though the above referred to observation of the court below extracted is not correct, how does he attack the other abovesaid finding of the court below regarding limitation. BUT, he did not give any direct answer to the question posed by me, but only repeatedly emphasized that the Court below has approached the case wrongly in having made the abovesaid observation that time is the essence of the contract in the case of agreement for sale of immovable property. BUT, even though the abovesaid observation of the lower appellate court is not correct, that by itself will not lead to the conclusion that the finding of the court below that the suit is barred by limitation is also not correct. Learned counsel for the appellant did not make any separate argument as to how the abovesaid finding regarding limitation is not correct. Even in the Memorandum of Grounds, I am unable to see any specific ground taken up against the abovesaid finding on limitation.