The main legal point established in the judgment is that for specific performance of a contract, the period of limitation is crucial, and any communication issued by the plaintiff after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation has no consequence.

Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral):

1. This is a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The issues in the matter were framed vide order dated 28th April, 2014. Vide the same order it was also directed that issues No. 1 and 2 be treated as preliminary issues.

2. Submissions have been made by both the sides on issue No. 2 which is “whether the suit claim is within time?”

3. It is the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint that the plaintiff in December, 1999 made an offer to the defendant to purchase the suit property, pursuant to the advertisements by the defendant in the newspapers for sale of the suit property. Subsequent to exchange of communication between the parties, plaintiff revised his offer on 14th December, 1999 and paid an advance amount of Rs.20 Lacs. Rs.1,20,00,000/-was to be paid at the time of registering the agreement to sell and handing over vacant possession to the plaintiff. Balance Rs.2,60,00,000/-was to be paid with 18 months handing over the possession to the plaintiff. The said offer was accepted by the defendant by passing a resolution and on 4th February, 2000 defendant issued the letter of acceptance of the offer made by the plaintiff.

4. Subsequently, an application seeking permission to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff was made to the Income Tax Department. The Income Tax Department issued a No Objection certificate on 8th May, 2000 in respect thereto. Thereafter on various occasions, meetings took place between the parties and correspondences were exchanged.

5. It has been stated by the plaintiff that on various occasions, the plaintiff has been asking for possession of the suit property but the same has not been transferred to him till date. The property has still not been converted into a freehold property. Even though the plaintiff on 12th May, 2008 informed the defendant that it has come to his knowledge that DDA has approved the scheme for conversion of properties of Darya Ganj area into freehold, defendant did not act thereupon.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that as agreed between the parties, it was a condition precedent that the suit property would be converted from leasehold to freehold before execution of the sale deed. The resolution passed by the defendant in the year 1999 was to the effect that the suit property would be sold after converting the same into freehold. However, defendant failed to get the suit property converted into freehold.

7. On the other hand it has been contended by the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation since the alleged agreement for sale of the suit property was revoked/cancelled by the defendant long ago. It has been stated that the offer of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property was made in December, 1999 which was accepted in February, 2000. After receiving permission from the Income Tax Authority on 8th May, 2000, which was communicated to the plaintiff, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff that all formalities have been completed, so the plaintiff shall pay the due amount as per the terms of the agreement. However, the plaintiff failed to make payment and it was informed by the plaintiff to the defendant that his funds were blocked with UTI and Tata Balanced funds.

8. Subsequently vide various letters the defendant informed the plaintiff that the said agreement between the parties stood cancelled and the advance earnest money is forfeited. In fact on 9th December, 2005, plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant asking him to hand over the possession of the suit property. In response to the said letter, defendant wrote to the plaintiff that more than 5 years had passed, the agreement stood expired long back and lapsed, agreement was executed initially for payment of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-on receipt of Income tax clearance and balance of Rs.2,60,00,000/- within 18 months of agreement. The plaintiff failed to fulfill his obligations an