IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff lacked privity of contract and was barred by limitation, thus unable to claim a charge under the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. The appellants are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.35,62,500/- with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the defendants and their assets charged on the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is having an extent of 29.78 Ares and the residential buildings and shop rooms therein belonged to the defendant No.1. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 entered into an Agreement for sale dated 18.09.2014 with the defendant No.3 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property @ Rs.2,15,000/- per cent within a period of three months after receiving an advance consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- from the defendant No.3. The said Agreement for sale contained an endorsement dated Nil signed by the parties to the said agreement that a new Agreement is executed since the sale could not be completed within three months from 18.06.2014. The defendant No.3 executed an Agreement for sale dated 28.04.2016 with the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property @ Rs.2,95,000/- per cent within a period of six months after receiving an advance consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The said Agreement contains four endorsements signed by the defendant No.3 extending the period of the Agreement till 30.10.2017.

2. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 & 2 have personally acknowledged and ratified the fact that they had duly authorised the defendant No.3 to enter into sub-agreements for sale with respect to the plaint schedule property; that since the plaint schedule property was entangled in litigation and the plaintiff believed that the plaint schedule property would be sold to him when litigation is over; that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; that the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are trying to sell the plaint schedule property to strangers; that even though there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, by the implication of the terms of the parent agreement for sale and the sub-agreement for sale, there is an implied and constructive contract between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2; that since the plaintiff has not improperly declined to accept delivery of property by tendering the balance consideration, the plaintiff is having charge over the plaint schedule property; and that since the relief for specific performance is barred by the law of limitation, the plaintiff can only seek recovery of the advance amount along with interest and future interest.

3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.1/2023 seeking attachment before judgment of the plaint schedule property and the conditional attachment was granted. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed their objection to I.A. No.1/2023. The defendant No.3 did not file any objection to I.A. No.1/2023. The plaintiff filed an additional affidavit. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed I.A. No.4/2024 to lift the attachment before judgment. The 3^rd defendant filed an objection contending that the plaintiff is entitled to attachment.

4. The Trial Court passed a common order allowing I.A. No.1/2023, ordering attachment of the plaint schedule property and dismissed I.A. No.4/2024.

5. The Trial Court did not mark any document while considering I.A.No. 1/2023. The impugned order refers to various documents produced before the Trial Court. After consideration of those documents, the Trial Court rendered the impugned order. The Appendix