(1.) The instant first appeal assails the judgment and decree passed by court below on 10.04.2002 in case No. 20-A/2001 whereby the suit in question merely seeking a declaration for performance of the agreement dated 7.6.1985 in favour of the appellant and an injunction restraining the breach thereof, was dismissed after holding that in the absence of any readiness and willingness shown by the plaintiff to discharge his obligations under the agreement and also that the suit is time barred.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present first appeal are that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 28.9.1981 seeking a declaratory decree that under the agreement dated 7.6.1985 Ex. P-1, the defendants are liable to pay the balance consideration and complete all necessary formalities for ensuring relieving of the suit plot from the rigors of ceiling law and that the defendants have waived their right to resile from their obligation under the agreement. A further declaration was sought that the plaintiff has waived his right under the agreement to refund the advance amount of consideration and that the agreement continues to hold the field. Besides a decree of permanent injunction was sought for injuncting the defendants from alienating the suit plot in favour of any other person and from making any construction over the same.
(3.) The trial Court framed nine issues in which the issue pertaining to execution of agreement dated 12.3.1985 having been made in favour of the plaintiff was answered in the affirmative. The second issue of completing the formalities relating to ceiling laws being the responsibility of the defendants or not was answered in the affirmative. Further the issue of having failed to take any steps to complete the formalities relating to ceiling laws despite repeated reminder of the plaintiff was also answered in favour of the plaintiff. The court also held in issue No. 4 that the plaintiff was ready and willing to tender the balance part of the consideration. The court also held qua issue No. 5 that despite receiving notice of the plaintiff, the defendants failed to take due permission from the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. However, the trial Court found the suit to be barred by limitation by recording finding that the agreement dated 12.3.1985 had to be executed as per it's term latest by 7.6.1985, and therefore the limitation period of three years for seeking decree of declaration expired in the month of June, 1988 whereas the suit in question was filed on 28.9.1991 by alleging the cause of action to have arisen on 26.9.1991 when the defendant No. 2 started collecting construction material on the suit plot. Finally the suit was dismissed by holding that defendant No. 1 cannot be compelled by any decree to execute the agreement dated 12.3.1985.