1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 13,50,000/-. It has been alleged in the plaint that in the year 1997, the defendant and his brother-in-law Joginder Singh approached the plaintiff and asked her whether she was interested in purchasing their land. They took her to village Manger in Faridabad and showed agriculture land comprised in Khasra Nos. 198/12, 198/13, 198/14, 198/17, 198/18/1, 198/18/2, 198/19, 198/22/1, 198/22/2, 198/22/3, 198/23, 198/24 owned by the defendant as well as some land by Joginder Singh. The plaintiff agreed to buy the said land from the defendant and about one acre of land from Joginder Singh. An Agreement to Sell dated 30th September, 1997 was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs 13,50,000/- to the defendant, being the sale consideration for the land. The defendant agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff by 31st May, 1998. The sale deed was to be executed within a month of handing over the possession. Joginder Singh executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the land sold by him to her. The defendant, however, failed to hand over the possession of the land, agreed to be sold by him to the plaintiff and to execute the necessary sale deed in her favour. The plaintiff, therefore, decided to rescind the agreement and asked the defendant to refund the sale consideration paid by him. Since the defendant has failed to refund the sale consideration, she has now sought the sum of Rs 13,50,000/- from him alongwith interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the agreement up to the date of filing of the suit, making a total sum of Rs 25,75,129/-.

2. The defendant has contested the suit. He has taken preliminary objections that the suit is barred by limitation and Delhi Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter on merits. The defendant has denied having executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and has claimed that the agreement, setup by the plaintiff, is a forged document. He has also denied having received any amount from the plaintiff and has also alleged that he is not the owner of the land, described in the agreement setup by the plaintiff.

3. In her replication, the plaintiff has not disputed the averment of the defendant that he is not the owner of the land subject matter of the agreement, pleaded by her.

4. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:-

1) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs 25,75,129/- from the defendant as claimed inclusive of inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. compounded quarterly? OPP

2) Whether this Court has no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction? OPD

3) Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD

4) Whether the agreement to sell dated 30th September, 1997 was a forged document? OPD”

Issue No.3

5. This suit is governed by Article 55 of Limitation Act, which provides that the period of limitation in a suit for compensation for the breach of any contract express or implied not herein specially provided for is three years from the date when the contract is broken or (where three are successive breaches) when the breach in respect of which the suit is instituted occurs, or where the breach is continuing, when it ceases. A bare perusal of the Agreement to Sell, alleged to have been executed between the plaintiff and the defendant, shows that the possession was to be delivered to the plaintiff on or before May 13, 1998 and the sale deed was to be executed within one month of the delivery of possession. Thus, the agreement, alleged to have been executed between the parties, envisaged execution of sale deed latest by 30th June, 1998. The plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit before 30th June, 1998. The suit, having been filed on 31st May, 2001, is well within the prescribed of limitation. The issue is, therefore, decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue N