MANICKKAM Vs. SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance has preferred the above appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff has entered into an agreement with defendants 1 and 2 on 12.12.1991 agreeing to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,06,000/- and paid an advance of Rs.20,000/-. As per the recitals in the agreement, the sale should have been completed on or before 14.06.1992, that is, six months time was fixed. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing, the defendants were evading the execution of the sale deed and also attempted to alienate the property. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.125 of 1992 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Later, the same was dismissed for default. In the meanwhile, the third defendant in the instant suit had purchased the property from the first and second defendants. Hence, he was also added as a party in O.S.No.125 of 1992. As the defendants are bound to honour the agreement dated 12.12.1991, the suit has been filed for specific performance.

(3.) The first and second defendants had filed written statements contending that the agreement dated 12.12.1991 was not true and valid. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as he was not possessed of sufficient means. The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.125 of 1992 was dismissed for non-prosecution. The plaintiff having not reserved his right, with the sanction of the Court, to file a subsequent suit for specific performance, the suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The first and second defendants had already sold the property to the third defendant on 11.02.1992 based on which, the third defendant was added even in the earlier suit in O.S.No.125 of 1991 and in the present suit also. The plaintiff has also sought for cancellation of sale deed in favour of the third defendant, which is not maintainable. The first and second defendants further contended that the suit is barred by limitation.