The limitation for specific performance suits begins upon notice of refusal to perform, and the plaint must be assessed as a whole to determine if it discloses a valid cause of action.

ORDER :

BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of her prayer to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Civil Original Suit No.96/2024. Besides the petitioner, respondent No.8 – Suman Lava had also prayed for rejection of plaint by filing a separate petition, which was dismissed on 06.12.2024 itself. Respondent No.8 – Suman Lava did not choose to challenge the impugned order anywhere.

2. The prayer was on two grounds; (a) the suit was barred by limitation; (b) the plaintiff has no real cause of action, rather, illusionary cause of action was cleverly drafted and presented before the court.

3. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 - Imarti Devi has brought the aforesaid suit for a decree of specific performance of contract. It would be worth to mention the admitted pedigree of the family of the parties. One Khoba Ram died leaving behind two issues, Imarti Devi - the plaintiff and late Joga Ram a son. Late Joga Ram left behind three daughters, who are petitioners – Usha, defendant No.8 Suma Lava and defendant No.9 Kusum. Late Joga Ram had a son late Prakash Meghwal, who pre deceased Joga Ram, as such, wife and children of late Prakash Meghwal are party to the suit as defendant No.2 to 7.

4. The case and claim of plaintiff – Imarti Devi, as disclosed in the plaint, is that father Khoba Ram had purchased agricultural land vide Khasra No.140/01 area 19 Bigha and 19 Biswas in village Pal, Patwar Shetra Pal in the District of Jodhpur in the name of Joga Ram in 1972. The plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- on different occasions to Joga Ram on demand of Joga Ram for his personal requirement. The said amount was value of the suit property, hence, Late Joga Ram on 22.05.2004 executed a deed in the nature of agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff. In the said deed, it is specifically mentioned that Joga Ram received entire consideration money of the suit property and transferred physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, who was already in cultivating possession of the same after death of the father. It is not disputed that Joga Ram retired as Chief Medical Health Officer, as such, he was a well educated person. The plaintiff further asserted that Joga Ram had assured that he will execute the registered sale deed as and when required by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that since the relationship between Joga Ram and the plaintiff was of full brother and sister, the plaintiff never disbelieved Joga Ram.

5. Moreover, the plaintiff had to perform no part of the contract as entire consideration money was already paid and physical possession of the purchased land was already handed over to the plaintiff. The factum of existence of agreement to sale was known to the children of Joga Ram. Joga Ram died in the year 2021 leaving behind his successors, who are party to the suit including the petitioner. The plaintiff stated that there were other lands of Khoba Ram bearing Khasra No.153 & 161. After death of Khoba Ram, in his place, name of Jaga Ram was recorded in the revenue records though the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of those land as well. In January, 2024, defendant No.1 got his name mutated in the revenue records and stated to the plaintiff that he would sale the property to prospective purchsers. Thereafter, the plaintiff challenged the said mutation order in appeal. Till then, the plaintiff was not in doubt that the children of Joga Ram would not execute the agreement to sale in favour of t