The plaintiff's failure to file the suit within the limitation period and to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract resulted in dismissal of the specific performance claim.

JUDGMENT :

(Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)

The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12-10-2006 in O.S.No.13 of 1997 passed by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District. The suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the 1st plaintiff on 02-11-1979 in respect of land of Ac.1-80 cents out of Ac.4-17 cents bearing R.S.No.473/2 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, agreeing to sell the same at Rs.89,000/- per acre. The 1st defendant received an advance of Rs.20,000/- from the 1st plaintiff on the date of agreement of sale. The 1st defendant also agreed to get necessary permission from Urban Land Ceiling Authority (ULCA, for short) for completion of the transaction. The 2nd defendant attested the agreement of sale, giving consent particularly for the term relating to removal of the shed and vacate the portion of the plaint schedule land. As per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale, the 1st defendant has to measure the land and to remove the shed raised by the 2nd defendant and to deliver the vacant possession. The balance of sale consideration has to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed within a period of 40 days. In case of delay by the plaintiffs in payment of balance amount, it shall be paid with interest. Whenever the 1st plaintiff required to perform his part of contract, the 1 st defendant has been promising but postponing it on the ground that permission from ULCA is not received and that the 2nd defendant also seeking time for removal of shed.

(b) It is further pleaded that on 18-10-1982, the 1st plaintiff got issued a notice demanding the 1st defendant to comply the conditions of agreement of sale and to obtain permission from ULCA and to get vacate it by the 2 nd defendant after removing the shed. The notice was returned with an endorsement as the 1st defendant is not available in the house for one week. Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff met the 1st defendant at Vijayawada and the 1 st defendant expressed his inability to comply with the conditions of agreement and sought further time. On 26-6-1985 and on 14-9-1987, the 1 st plaintiff addressed letters to the 1st defendant not to make further delay in performing his part of contract. The 1st plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On 21-01-1998, the 1st plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the 1st defendant demanding to perform his part of contract. But, the 1st defendant managed to return the same knowing the contents of it. The 1st plaintiff also got a copy of the notice sent under certificate of posting, dated 04-02-1988. The 1st plaintiff learnt that the 1 st defendant received the same but kept quiet. The 1st defendant failed to perform his part of contract. Now, the 1st plaintiff believes that the 1 st defendant is trying to avoid contract due to escalation of prices of property. Hence, the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1 st defendant, which was adopted by the 2nd defendant by filing a memo, are as follows:

It is contended that the 2nd plaintiff cannot claim any relief basing on the Will. The legal representatives of deceased 1st plaintiff are necessary parties and because of the failure to implead them, the suit is not maintainable. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

4. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendants 5 and 6 are as follows:

It is contended that the 1st plaintiff was having ancestral properties and there is no partition took place in between the predeceased son of 1st plaintiff and they continued as a joint family till the death of predeceased son of 1 st plaintiff. Moreover, the 1st plaintiff sold some of the ancestral properties at their native place and with