The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Civil Suit No.20/2005, which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Panaji. The suit of appellant filed for relief of specific performance of contract and in alternative for the return of consideration amount is dismissed by the trial Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 are heard.

2. Respondent no.1 was duly served, but she did not turn up. The learned Additional Government Advocate remained present, but there was no interest of Additional Government Advocate, State in the present matter.

3. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:

The suit is filed in respect of property bearing survey no.40/2 admeasuring 4500 square metres situated at Village Ponda (bearing matriz no.575) and old cadastral survey no.17/3 having area of 12300 square metres (together bearing matriz no.429) situated at Khadpabandh, Ponda within jurisdiction of Ponda Municipality, property bearing survey no.14 (new) of Ponda (bearing matriz no.421 and 422) from Ponda Municipality having area of 17792 square metres.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that under two separate registered agreements of sale dated 18/11/1999 and 23/11/1999, the defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit property to him as the holder of power of attorney of her mother. It is contended that survey no.40/2, 17/3 and 14/0 were standing in the name of the mother of defendant no.1. According to plaintiff, he had paid most of the consideration in respect of transaction and out of Rs.5 lacs he had paid Rs.4.5 lacs to defendant no.1 as the advance consideration and she had accepted it for her parents. Defendants no.2 & 3 were formal parties as they were expected to register the sale deeds, if executed in future. They are made respondents no.2 & 3 in this proceeding.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of March, 2005, he learnt that defendant no.1 had either sold some portion of the suit property or she was attempting to sell the suit property to third party. According to the plaintiff, under the agreement, he had got the possession of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that as defendant no.1 was not ready to execute the sale deed, he issued notice to her and asked her to execute the sale deeds. He has contended that he had published notice in respect of aforesaid transaction in daily newspaper 'Herald'. It is contended that as defendant no.1 did not respond, he was constrained to file the suit. According to him, the cause of action arose in the month of March, 2005 when he learnt that the defendant no.1 was trying to transfer the suit property to third party. It is contended that due to this circumstance the suit is within limitation.

6. In the suit, plaintiff has prayed for relief of specific performance of contract mentioned in aforesaid two agreements and alternatively he has prayed for relief of return of aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He has also prayed for relief of injunction to protect his possession.

7. Defendant no.1 filed written statement and contested the suit. It is her case that her parents were never owners of property bearing survey no.40/2 described in plaint and her maternal uncles are the owners of this property. It is her case that since 1946 her maternal uncles are in possession of this property and there was no question of her making agreement with plaintiff to sell the property. It is her case that survey no.5 and 17 belong to her mother and she also got the property from her parents and so defendant no.1 had no right to sell this property. It is contended that survey no.14 (old no.3) also belongs to her maternal uncle and her parents have no concern with this property. It is the case of defendant no.1 that in the year 1995, she was in need of job and so she approached plaintiff who was doing some business. According to defendant no.1 the plaintiff was dealing in consumer