Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of judgement and order dated 27th September, 2016 by which the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter 'Plaintiff') was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

2. Late Shri Banwari Lal was the co-owner of land comprising in Khasra No.33/3/1 (1-16) in the Revenue Estate of Village Palam, New Delhi. Late Shri Banwari Lal had four sons namely Subhash Chand, Satbir Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Ganga Ram. Plaintiff is the son of Ganga Ram, who is now deceased and is thus represented by his heirs. The Respondents/Defendants (hereinafter 'Defendants') are the other sons of Late Shri Banwari Lal. The Plaintiff is thus the nephew of the Defendants who are his uncles. There are disputes pending with the Gaon Sabha in respect of the land which forms the estate of Shri Banwari Lal.

3. However, the dispute in the present case relates only to 50 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No.33/3/1 the above mentioned land which was agreed to be sold by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, vide agreement to sell dated 16th February, 2009. The consideration agreed was Rs.3,50,000/- and Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, possession letter, affidavit and receipt were executed. The Plaintiff claimed to be in possession of this part of the property since 16th February, 2009 and has raised the boundary wall.

4. Plaintiff had filed an earlier civil suit no.1082/14/06 against Late Shri Banwari Lal and the Defendants which was dismissed on 15th January, 2016 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is the case of Plaintiff that after the agreement to sell dated 16th February, 2009 was executed, the Defendants have failed to execute the final sale deed or get the same registered. It is the Plaintiff’s case that after the dismissal of the said earlier suit, attempts were made by the Defendants to dispossess the Plaintiff. Hence, the present suit, praying for decree of specific performance, possession and permanent injunction came to be filed.

5. In the written statement, the Defendants pleaded that all the legal heirs of Late Shri Banwari Lal have not been impleaded and the suit was bad for non-joinder. It was also pleaded that the documents including agreement to sell of 16th February, 2009 were not mentioned in the earlier suit despite Plaintiff having knowledge of the said suit and hence, the present suit was not maintainable. The Defendants also challenged the genuineness of the documents dated 16th February, 2009. The Defendants further challenged that no consideration was received by them and that the documents appeared to be completely fabricated. The Defendants further submitted that there was a compromise deed dated 21st February, 2009 which was sought to be filed by the Plaintiff herein in civil suit no.1082/14/06, which was finally withdrawn and even at that stage, the documents dated 16th February, 2009 had not been pleaded and no right was claimed in view of the said documents.

6. Preliminary issue was framed on 19th August, 2016 to the following effect :

“Whether the suit of Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation.”

7. The Trial Court relied upon Article 54 of the Limitation Act and held that the pleadings in respect of cause of action are very vague. The Court further held that since no specific date was provided for performance in the agreement for performance of the agreement and since no notice was issued calling upon the Defendants to execute the sale deed, the cause of action would to be calculated from the date of agreement i.e. 16th February, 2009. Since the date of institution of the suit is 18th March, 2016 the suit is barred by limitation.

Submission of Appellant/Plaintiff

8. The submission of counsel for the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff has been in possession of the property i.e., 50 sq. yards for many years now. He submits that the d