The defendant lost the right to enforce the agreement of sale due to the law of limitation, leading to the plaintiff's entitlement to possession of the property.

( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, the respondent is notified. Accordingly, he has put in appearance through counsel. Records of the suit are also received.

( 2 ) AS the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted. Paper books are alsofiled. Hence it is heard for final disposal.

( 3 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 10-9-1990 passed by the learned XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city CCH. No. 14, in O. S. No. 372 of 1981. The respondent is the defendant.

( 4 ) THE suit was filed for possession of the suit schedule premises and also for adeclaration that the occupation of suit schedule premises by the defendant is unlawful and further to direct him to vacate the suit schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same and pay damages.

( 5 ) THE suit schedule property is a house bearing No. 388, A Cross, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11, measuring 40 x 31 ft. and bounded on the: east by : Vacant site of CITB; west by : House No. 380; north by: M. H. B. House; and south by : Road.

( 6 ) THE appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid relief on 2-2-1981. Anapplication for amendment was made on 18-10-1982; it was allowed on 10-12-1982 and the plaint came to be amended on 10-12-1982. In the plaint, as filed on 2-2-1981, the plaintiff averred that he is the owner of the suit schedule house; that he was put in possession of the suit schedule house by the karnataka Housing Board; that since he was transferred from Bangalore to mysore, the defendant, who was in good terms with him, was permitted to reside in the suit schedule premises; that he agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for a period of three years towards the occupation of the suit house; that the agreement was effected on 17-4-1973; that as per the terms of the agreement, the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was not to carry any interest and that the defendant was not to pay any rent for his occupation of the premises for a period of three years. It was also further averred by the plaintiff that defendant was to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises on 17-4-1976; that surprisingly, defendant exhibited his hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and refused to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises; that a letter dated 27-7-1977 was sent to the defendant informing him that he was in unlawful possession of the suit schedule premises and that the defendant though acknowledged the letter, did not respond and did not deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. Plaintiff further averred that he also sent another letter to the defendant. Even then, he did not hand over possession. Therefore, he pleaded that the possession of the defendant was illegal and unlawful. Though he quantified the damages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month in the plaint, he reserved his right to file a separate suit for recovery of damages or mesne profits and prayed for only possession and declaration that the possession of the defendant is unlawful.

( 7 ) IN the written statement, defendant denied the agreement dated 17-4-1973 pleaded by the plaintiff but set up another agreement dated 16-12-1972 under which, according to the defendant, plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property and put him in possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to that agreement. He also further pleaded that pursuant to the agreement of sale, he paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/- through a cheque dated 13-12-1972; that possession of the defendant was not unlawful because he was in possession of the suit schedule premises pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 16-12-1972; that the Mysore Housing Board put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property on 24-1-1973 and on the same day the plaintiff put the defendant in possession of the same; that the defendant called upon the plaintiff to execute a regular sale deed, but the plaintiff replied that as per lease-cum-sale agreement dated 24-1-19