The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for specific performance can be rejected on the grounds of limitation and non-compliance with Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order of allowing the application under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Or VII Rule 11 CPC dated 30.7.2008 in Application No.2632 of 2008 in C.S.No.264 of 2007 thereby rejecting the appellant/plaintiff's suit for specific performance, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2. The suit is one for specific performance of agreement of sale of immovable property, for damages and permanent injunction. Admittedly, no regular agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. Case of plaintiff is that in January, 1994, he entered into an understanding with the defendant under which defendant agreed to sell his property in Old No.40, New No.14, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai- 17 measuring an extent of 5700 sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs.46,00,000/-. In pursuance to the said understanding, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.1.1994 and another sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on the same day (10.1.1994). In evidence of the same, on 10.1.1994 defendant issued a stamped receipt, which is stated to contain terms and conditions relating to the sale of the property. Between 10.1.1994 to 23.6.1994, the plaintiff has paid a total amount of Rs.33,00,000/-. The plaintiff claims that in part performance of the contract of sale, he was put in possession of the property in May, 1995. According to the plaintiff, he has always been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-and get the sale deed executed, but the defendant failed to complete the transaction; but has engineered the scheme to dispossess the plaintiff and dispose of the property to some third party thereby defeating the valuable rights of the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff has further averred that in November 2002, the defendant deputed several persons to inspect the suit property and on being contacted, the defendant informed the plaintiff that he has proposed to do certain modifications in the suit property. In November 2002, one Mohan Kumar claiming to be a builder called upon the plaintiff and threatened him to vacate the suit premises stating that he has proposed to purchase the property and to promote the same by putting up flats. The plaintiff claims to have lodged a police complaint in T.Nagar Police Station on 2.12.2002 and later filed a civil suit in O.S.No.6514 of 2002 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from dealing with the suit property and also to protect the possession of the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed for default; but according to the plaintiff, he filed an application for restoration in I.A.No.21531 of 2005 and the same is said to be pending. The plaintiff admits that the defendant has also filed O.S.No.300 of 2006 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.

4. Alleging that the defendant has no inclination to fulfil his obligation in execution of the sale deed and that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed after paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-. The plaintiff has filed the suit C.S.No.264 of 2007 for specific performance to direct the defendant/respondent to execute the sale deed. In the said suit, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- and also future damages and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property.

5. Defendant has filed application – A.No.2632 of 2008 under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint. Respondent sought for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and also in view of filing of earlier suit – O.S.No.6514 of 2002, the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2