A suit for specific performance filed after the limitation period is barred, and the provisions of the Migrant Act apply to the case.

ORDER :

1. Through the medium of present appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”), whereby application of the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed.

2. Admit

3. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. N. A. Tabasum, Advocate, who is on caveat, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The caveat stands discharged.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, grounds of appeal and the documents placed on record.

5. It appears that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19^th April, 2004 read with supplementary agreement to sell dated 31^st August, 2005 in respect of land measuring 01 kanal falling in Khasra No.743-min situated at Nigeen Bagh, Srinagar, against the defendants. The plaintiff had also sought a prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from executing further documents with respect to the suit property and also restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.

6. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of the land in question by virtue of agreement to sell dated 19^th April, 2004. It was claimed that the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs in instalments to defendant No.1 and after receiving the said amount, possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff.

7. Another supplementary affidavit dated 31^st August, 2005 was executed between the parties in which it was admitted by defendant No.1 that consideration amount of Rs. 5.75 lacs had been received by him. It was pleaded that after execution of the agreement to sell and supplementary agreement to sell, defendants No.2 and 3 have received the sale consideration and they have delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff who is in possession thereof without any interference right from the year 2004.

8. It was pleaded in the plaint that a couple of days prior to the filing of the suit, some persons approached the plaintiff and told him that they have purchased the aforesaid land. It was pleaded that the defendants have committed breach of contract and that attorney holder of defendant No.4 is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit while claiming to have purchased the land in question by virtue of agreement to sell and attorney dated 18.02.2001. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that he approached the defendants for registration of the sale deed but they tried to delay the matter. According to the plaintiff, he is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell but defendant No.1 is avoiding to execute the sale deed on the ground that the plaintiff is not paying full and final sale consideration. It has been pleaded that the defendants are hell bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and that cause of action had accrued in his favour a few days prior to the filing of the suit when one person, namely, Aijaz Ahmad tried to dispossess him from the suit property.

9. It seems that during pendency of the suit, defendants No.5 to 7 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court in which they contended that the subject matter of the suit is migrant property as defined under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales), Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the Migrant Act”) and that defendants No.5 to 7 are migrants as defined under the Migrant Act. It was submitted that defendant No.5 had approached the District Magistrate, Srinagar, with an application seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the suit property and the District Magistrate, after scrutinizing the revenue record and after hearing the parties, passed eviction