The suit for specific performance was barred by limitation due to the refusal of the heirs to complete the transaction, as evidenced by a registered Development Agreement dated 31/12/2007.

R.M. SAVANT, J.

1. Admit. Considering the challenge raised, taken up for hearing forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The above First Appeal challenges the order dated 08/02/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan by which order the Application filed by the Respondent No.1 herein i.e. the Original Defendant No.1 under Order 7, Rule 11(a)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed and resultantly the plaint came to be rejected.

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above First Appeal in brief can be stated thus :-

The Appellant herein is the original Plaintiff. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are the heirs of one Ganpat Dagdu Dhone. The Respondent No.1 herein is the original Defendant No.1 claims through the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein. The Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 i.e. the original Defendant Nos. 8 to 11 have the rights created in their favour by the Respondent No.1 herein i.e. the original Defendant No.1. The Respondent Nos.12 and 13 are the Public Authorities exercising the powers under the relevant Acts.

In the context of the controversy, it is only the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant Nos.2 to 7 who can be said to be the relevant parties, the said parties would be referred to as per their designation in the Suit viz. The Appellant would be referred to as the Plaintiff, the Respondent No.1 would be referred to as the Defendant No.1, and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 would be referred to as the Defendant Nos.2 to 7.

4. The bone of contention between the parties is the land bearing Survey No.37/2 admeasuring 12000 sq.mtrs (Now claimed by the Defendant No.1 as 12430 sq.mtrs.). The said land originally belonged to Shri Vijay Krishnalal Parekh and Smt. Pushpaben D. Dani. In respect of the said land one Ganpat Dagdu Dhone was the tenant (Kul) recognized as such under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (for short “BT&AL Act”). It is the case of the Plaintiff as averred in the plaint that he had already purchased from the said owners Shri Vijay Krishnalal Parekh and Smt. Pushpaben D. Dani the land admeasuring 22250 sq.mtrs. in the said Survey No.37 in the year 1987. It is the case of the Plaintiff that upon this the tenant Ganpat Dagdu Dhone was persuading the Plaintiff to purchase the part of the land in the said Survey No.37 of which he was the tenant. The parties accordingly entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 20/02/1988. (It seems that the said Agreement for Sale has been subsequently registered on 11/05/2009.) The said Ganpat Dagdu Dhone also executed Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 29/09/1988. It is averred by the Plaintiff that pursuant to the said Agreement for Sale dated 20/02/1988, the Plaintiff was put in possession and he is in possession as such from the date of the said Agreement for Sale. It has further been averred by the Plaintiff that out of the said property i.e. 12000 sq.mtrs, an area of 5480 sq.mtrs. was gifted by him to one Shahu Shikshan Sanstha of Pandharpur. It has further been averred by the Plaintiff that since the plot of land which was gifted to the said Shahu Shikshan Sanstha did not have access, the Plaintiff provided the said Shahu Shikshan Sanstha the access through the remaining land. It has further been averred by the Plaintiff that the said Survey No.37 was bifurcated at his behest on account of the Gift Deed executed by him in favour of the said Shahu Shikshan Sanstha. In so far as the land gifted to the said Shahu Shikshan Sanstha is concerned, the same came to be designated as Survey No.37/2 whereas the remaining land with the Plaintiff was designated as Survey No.37/1. It has further been averred by the Plaintiff that out of the said survey No.37/2, an Agreement for Sale was entered into by the Plaintiff with Shri Girish Suryakanth Latke. It is the case of the Plaintiff