The judgment emphasizes the admissibility of unregistered documents under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the determination of the limitation period for specific performance.

(Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the decree and judgment dated 01.09.1998 made in A.S.No.67 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur confirming the decree and judgment dated 18.06.1996 made in O.S.No.874 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvallur.)

The defendants 1, 3, 5 to 10 in O.S. No. 874 of 1988 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur are the appellants in the second appeal. The said suit was filed by respondents herein for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.08.1980 and for permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit and on appeal, the first appellate court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court, hence, the present second appeal has been filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint are as follows: -

The first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement, Ex.A1 dated 20.08.1980 with the first plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.9,060/- and on that day entire amount was paid. In and by the said agreement, Ex.A1, the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed forthwith on request made by the first plaintiff and there is no time stipulated for performance of the contract. It is also stated that after execution of Ex.A1, the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit property and they were paying kist to the revenue authorities till 1988. During 1988, the first plaintiff requested the first defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour; that the first defendant told the first plaintiff to prepare the sale deed and wait at the Sub-registrar Office, Perambakkam on 09.08.1988, accordingly, the first plaintiff purchased stamp papers to the value of Rs.2,542/-, prepared sale deed and went to the Sub-registrar Office, Perambakkam and waited there till 5.00 p.m. but the first defendant did not turn up; that the plaintiffs went to the residence of the first defendant and requested him to sign the sale deed and register it, but the first defendant evaded. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened in the presence Munusamy, PW2; Jayarama Reddy, PW3 and Murugesan, PW4, but the first defendant refused to execute the sale deed, hence, the first plaintiff sent a legal notice, Ex.A6 dated 22.09.1988 calling upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed, for which the first defendant sent a reply notice, Ex.A7 dated 01.10.1988 thereby refused to execute the sale deed on false reasons. On 06.12.1988, the defendants attempted to cut and carry away the Velikathan trees standing in the suit property, which was prevented by the plaintiffs, hence, the suit was filed.

4. The defendants have filed written statement contending that the first plaintiff is his family friend; that except the suit property, the defendants did not own any other property and therefore there is no necessity for them to sell the same to the first plaintiff; that the first plaintiff was employed as Village Munsif and the second defendant was the Village Headman; that the first plaintiff was removed from service and in order to reinstate him in service, his higher authorities insisted to furnish immovable property in his name, hence, he requested the first defendant to execute a sale agreement in respect of the suit property and considering the close friendship, the first defendant signed Ex.A1; that on the date of execution of Ex.A1, the first plaintiff also gave a letter stating the above facts; that the averment that possession was handed over to the plaintiffs is false; that the first defendant has not received any amount as alleged; that the patta in respect of the suit property stand in the name of the third defendant; that the defendants never interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs, in other words, the suit property was never in the possession of the plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5.