The main legal point established in the judgment is that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring trial for determination.

Heard both sides.

2. In O.A.No.926 of 2003, the applicants are the plaintiffs. They sought for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from alienating or encumbering or creating third party rights in the property described in the schedule. The property is the land and building (which is since demolished) ad measuring 21 grounds and 312 sq.ft. in R.S.No.342/2 Part at Door Nos.153, 154, 155 and 156 of Peters Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai-86.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement, dated 17. 1991 executed between the defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the property in the schedule and for a consequential direction to hand over the possession of the property, which was illegally taken from M/s.Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited, to the plaintiffs in terms of the agreement, dated 17. 1991. M/s.Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited had gone into liquidation. Therefore, the Official Liquidator has been made as the 6th defendant.

4. In the application for interim injunction, only notice was ordered. Therefore, defendants 1 to 5 has now come forward with an another application in A.No.1442 of 2004 filed under Order 7 Rules 11(a) and (d) for rejection of plaint.

5. It was stated that one Dega Sundaram Reddy, the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 entered into an agreement with the first defendant for developing the suit schedule property. In terms of the development agreement, dated 17. 1991, late Dega Sundaram Reddy had to put up a multistoried residential complex in an extent of 1,17,000 sq.ft. at his cost and allot 38,000 sq.ft. to the first defendant, retaining for his benefit the remaining 79,000 sq.ft. On 20.09.1991, no objection was granted by the appropriate authority in terms of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, on 18. 1994, a Tripartite agreement was entered between Late Dega Sundaram Reddy, the first defendant and Alsa Construction and Housing Limited (since liquidated). The remaining 79,000 sq.ft. of constructed area and 79/117 undivided share in the land was to be shared between Alsa Housing and Construction Limited and Late Dega Sundaram Reddy. However, on 21. 1995, Dega Sundaram Reddy expired leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

6. On 13. 1998, the first defendant issued a notice to the fourth plaintiff and Alsa Construction and Housing Limited holding that the tripartite agreement must be treated as void and the first defendant was at liberty to carry out the work of construction himself or to fix up an another promoter/ builder to commence and to complete the venture without reference to them. On 23. 1998, M/s.Alsa Construction and Housing Limited sent a reply notice through its counsel. On 6. 1998, the plaintiffs counsel sent a reply, stating that Alsa Construction and Housing Limited had committed breach of agreement, dated 18. 1994 and the rights of the plaintiffs and the first defendant will be revived as per the earlier agreement, dated 17. 1991. The first defendant contended by reply, dated 16. 1998, that the agreement, dated 17. 1991 is not in subsistence and it is barred by limitation. It was also stated that the earlier agreement as well as tripartite agreement had become null and void and unenforceable. It must be stated that Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited went into liquidation even as early as 25.09.2000. The present suit was filed on 23.09.2003.

7. Though in the application filed by the plaintiff it was stated that respondents were in possession, in view of the order of injunction in I.A.No.21414 of 2000 in O.S.No.7913 of 2000 pending on the file of the 9th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, they were restrained from interfering with the possession of the first respondent/defendant. Therefore, they sought for an injunction against the defendants from alienating or encumbering the properties.

8. Since only notice was ordered in this applicati