R JAGADEESAN Vs. K DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree in A. S. No. 1/1995 reversing Judgment of the trial court and thereby dismissing Plaintiff's suit for Specific Performance. Unsuccessful Plaintiff is the Appellant in the Second Appeal. For convenience, parties are referred as per they array in the suit.

(2.) SUIT property is a tiled house in S. F. No. 4/1 to an extent of east to west 25 feet, north to south 24 ? feet, a total extent of 612 ? sq. ft. Appellant/plaintiff has entered into a sale agreement on 06. 06. 1986 (Ex. A2) with the Respondent/defendant and another paternal uncle Subbarayan to purchase the suit property and also another half share of the Defendant, the same extent of suit property, for a valid consideration of Rs. 6,000/ -. Soon after the execution of sale agreement, Plaintiff's two paternal uncles, the Defendant Duraiswamy and Subbarayan had divided the said property orally, in which western half to an extent of east to west 25 feet, north to south to an extent of 24 ? feet, a total extent of 612 ? sq. ft. was allotted to Subbarayan and likewise the same extent on the eastern side was allotted to Duraiswamy. To honour the sale agreement (Ex. A2), Subbarayan had registered the said extent by means of registered sale deed dated 12. 02. 1987 (Ex. A1) in favour of the Plaintiff. But the Defendant was evading to perform his part of contract by executing the sale deed. Inspite of demand and issuance of lawyer's notice Ex. A3 dated 14. 03. 1987, Defendant has been evading execution of sale deed under one pretext or another. Plaintiff filed the suit for Specific Performance on 21. 03. 1990 within the period of three years from the date of refusal of execution of sale deed as per the denial in the reply notice Ex. A4 dated 27. 03. 1987. Stating that Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, Plaintiff has filed the suit for Specific Performance.

(3.) DEFENDANT has resisted the suit inter alia contending that Plaintiff had obtained Defendant's signature in a blank stamp paper and the same was used for fabricating the suit agreement. According to the Defendant, he is entitled to only ?th share and the remaining ?th share belongs to his three sons. Out of three sons, two sons are major and one major son alone consented for execution of sale agreement and the other minor sons are not even eonomiee party to the sale agreement. Defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation and limitation period starts from the date of sale agreement 06. 06. 1986 (Ex. A2) and not from the date of refusal of performance in reply notice dated 27. 03. 1987 (Ex. A4) and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.