The suit for specific performance was barred by limitation as per Articles 54 and 58 of the Limitation Act, requiring a specific challenge to the termination notice for maintainability.

JUDGMENT

A. The Challenge

1. These appeals are filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 15 January 2022 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Thane in Regular Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2012, by which the appeal has been allowed and the Judgment and Decree dated 30 March 1998 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane in Special Civil Suit No. 454 of 1994 is set aside. The first Appellate Court has decreed Special Civil Suit No. 454 of 1994 holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the Agreement for Sale dated 11 January 1988. It has directed Plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 4,30,850/- with further directions to Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 to execute Conveyance Deed in Plaintiff's favour in respect of the suit lands. Defendants are further restrained by an order of permanent injunction from alienating, transferring and /or creating third party interests in respect of the suit lands.

2. In the Special Civil Suit No. 454 of 1994, original Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 were vendors, who had executed Agreement for Sale dated 11 January 1988 in Plaintiff's favour. After dismissal of the Suit by the Trial Court on 30 March 1998, M/s. Everest Land Developers (Everest) purchased land bearing Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 6 from Defendant Nos.1 to 9 on 13 May 2009. Therefore, Everest came to be impleaded as Respondent No. 10 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2012. On 2 August 2012, Everest sold the land bearing Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 6 to M/s Harmony Lifestyle Structures Private Limited (Harmony), who was not impleaded in the appeal before the first Appellate Court.

3. The impugned decree of the first Appellate Court directs original Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 (vendors) to execute Conveyance Deed in respect of the suit lands bearing Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 2 and Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 6 in Plaintiff's favour. Out of original Defendant Nos.1 to 9, only original Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5, 8 and 9 have filed Second Appeal No. 350 of 2022 alongwith Everest, who was impleaded as Respondent No. 10 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2012. The original Defendant Nos. 2, 6 and 7 are impleaded as Proforma Respondents to Second Appeal No. 350 of 2022. On the other hand, Harmony, who purchased part of the suit land on 2 August 2012 and who was not impleaded either before the Trial or the first Appellate Court has filed Second Appeal No. 353 of 2022. By order dated 21 August 2023 this Court (Coram: N.R. Borkar, J.) has granted leave to Harmony to file appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree of the first Appellate Court.

B. Factual Matrix

4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 are the original owners in respect of to agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 2 admeasuring 1267.28 square yards, equivalent to 1060 square meters and Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 6 admeasuring 4567.75 square yards equivalent to 3820.60 sq.meters at village-Ovale, Taluka and District -Thane. This is the suit property described in the Plaint.

5. On 11 January 1988, the original owners i.e Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 executed unregistered agreement for sale in Plaintiff's favour agreeing to sell the suit property for consideration of Rs. 641,850/-. The agreement records that the consideration was fixed at Rs.