RAMANUJULAMMA Vs. RAMAIAH CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of suit filed for specific performance of the contract of sale executed by the father of defendants 1 to 4. The averments in the plaint are as follows : The father of the defendants 1 to 3 and owner of the plaint schedule property agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. 800/- and executed an agreement of sale dated 17-4-1962 after receiving an advance of Rs. 600/-. Pursuant to the agreement, possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff and it was agreed that the father of the defendants should execute the sale deed whenever demanded by the plaintiff. Six months after the execution of the suit agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs. 100/- towards the balance of the consideration. The father of the defendants during his life time was promising to execute the sale deed and defendants 1 to 3 were also promising to execute the sale deed. With a view t,o defeat the rights of the plaintiff over the suit land, defendants I to 4 executed a nominal sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of defeudants 5 and 6, who are not bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the suit agreement. The plea of the defendants is that the agreement is a forged document. Four years prior to the death of the father of the defendants 1 to 3, he became mad and even if it is considered that the father of defendants 1 to 3 executed the agreement, the plaintiff is entitled to get a sale deed only to an extent of l/4th share of the plaint schedule property to which the father of the defendants 1 to 3 was entitled. The alleged payment of Rs. 100/- is denied. The father of the defendants 1 to 3 was never the manager of the plaint schedule property and there was no legal necessity to alienate the suit land. The suit is barred by limitation. On these pleadings five issues have been framed.

(2.) Both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding that the father of defendants 1 to 3 was the manager of the joint family and ExA-1 the suit agreement is true, genuine and binding on the defendants. Both the the Courts found that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court held that though the payment of Rs. 100/-towards sale consideration is not substantiated, it will not disentitle the plaintiff for getting specific performance in view of the fact that the bulk of the consideration has been paid. The appellate court also agreed with the finding of the trial court that the payment of Rs. 100/- is not true and held that in view of the false plea taken by the plaintiff, the specific performance of the suit agreement cannot be granted. In so far as the refund of advance of Rs. 600/- also the appellate court held that it cannot be granted as there is no prayer by the plaintiff for the refund of the advance and further it cannot be refunded as it is barred by limitation. It may be mentioned that the trial court found that the defendants 5 and 6 are not bona fide purchasers and hence they cannot have any claim.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit is not barred by limitation and both the courts proceeded on a distorted interpretation of the evidence and facts and circumstances. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the suit is clearly barred by limitation as disclosed from the evidence of the plaintiff himself and in any event the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance as he has not come with clean hands and the alleged payment of Rs 100/- is found to be false by both the courts. The relevant provision of the Limitation Act is Article 54 which is as follows :