Court confirmed that a suit for specific performance filed within three years from the notice of refusal is not time-barred under Limitation Act provisions, emphasizing the validity of oral agreements and continuous possession.

Judgment:

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2022 in A.S.No.39 of 2018, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu at Gooty (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 27.03.2018 in O.S.No.74 of 2011, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.74 of 2011.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.74 of 2011 with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendants to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.39 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants in the above suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.74 of 2011, is as follows:

The plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 are the sons of A. Masthanappa; 2^nd defendant is the son of 1^st defendant; 4^th defendant and 5^th defendants are the sons of 3^rd defendant. In the year 1987, a partition was effected among A. Masthanappa, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and 3 and suit schedule property fell to the share of A. Masthanappa and after his demise, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 3 acquired the said property and on 22.04.2002 defendant Nos.1 and 3 along with their children i.e., defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 after receiving consideration of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff, executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and they are also agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff whenever demanded and since then, plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The revenue officials after confirmation with the defendants with regard to sale transaction, recognized title of plaintiff and mutated his name in the revenue records and issued record of rights and pattadar passbook. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and as defendant Nos.1 and 3 are his brothers, he believed them that they will not violate the terms of agreement of sale. Later, plaintiff sold Ac.0-50 cents out of schedule mentioned property to one Omkarappa and thereafter 1^st defendant has got issued a legal notice, dated 16.03.2011 to the plaintiff and in turn plaintiff sent a suitable reply and that the plaintiff suspected bonafides of defendants. On 30.05.2011, he got issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to execute a regular registered sale deed in his favour on 10.06.2011 and defendants having received the said notice, failed to comply and started trying to interfere with his peaceful pos