IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue for specific performance can be lost due to the limitation period, leading to the grant of possession to the defendants.

JUDGMENT :

R.S.A.No.170/2007 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in R.A.No.190/2002 and R.S.A.No.171/2007 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in R.A.No.116/2004.

2. These appeals are heard together and reserved for judgment.

3. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

4. In R.S.A.No.170/2007, the factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the defendants are husband and wife and they have executed an unregistered agreement of sale dated 18.07.1977 in favour of the plaintiff and thereby agreed to sell the property bearing Sy.No.82/A measuring 2 acres of Chiradoni village, Basapatna hobli, Channagiri taluk for valuable consideration of Rs.17,402/-. On the date of the said agreement, the entire sale consideration was paid and the said land was granted land to the defendants. In the said grant, there was a condition for not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. Hence, immediately, after the lapse of the period of non-alienation clause which was going to be expired on 16.01.1985, the sale deed was not executed by the defendants and hence, the plaintiff had approached and requested the defendants to execute the sale deed, when they failed to execute the sale deed, a suit has been filed in O.S.No.307/1990. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff stating that the agreement becomes void and the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants have also made the counter claim of possession and the plaintiff took the contention that the counter claim is barred by limitation. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, framed the following Issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that since the date of grant he and his brother were cultivating the suit land as contended?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants agreed to sell the suit land on 18.07.1977 for Rs.17,402/-and the execution of agreement of sale by the defendant on the same date?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that he has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.17,402/-as contended by him?

4. Whether the defendants prove that the agreement of sale is a void document as contended?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the suit agreement as prayed for?

6. What decree or order?

Additional Issues

1. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that counter claim made by the defendants is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the defendants are entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property as prayed in their counter claim?

6. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead their evidence and accordingly, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P20. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D13. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered that there was a sale agreement and entire sale consideration has been paid by answering Issue Nos.2 and 3 and answered Issue No.4 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the agreement is void and dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance since the suit is barred by limitation and counter claim is also dismissed in coming to the conclusion that the counter claim is also barred by limitation and the defendants are also not entitled for the relief of counter claim. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff as well as counter claim made by the defendants are dismissed by the Trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the p