Suit barred by limitation.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.333 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirukoilur is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for specific performance on the ground that the second respondent, the owner of the property agreed to sell the same by way of oral agreement on 6.10.1969. Followed by the agreement, she also executed the sale deed on 16.10.1969. Since she refused to come to the Sub-Registrars office for registration, the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.422 of 1970 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thirukoilur under Sec.77 of the Indian Registration Act for compulsory registration of the sale deed. The first respondent was impleaded, since he has entered into an agreement of sale with the second respondent, subsequent to the oral agreement entered into between the second respondent and the appellant/plaintiff. While the suit O.S.No.422 of 1970 was pending, the first respondent filed O.S.No.7 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore against the appellant and the second respondent for specific performance of the agreement entered into between himself and the second respondent. At the instance of the respondents, O.S.No.422 of 1970 was transferred to Sub-Court, Cuddalore, where both the suits were tried and suit O.S.No.422 of 1970 was dismissed and O.S.No.7 of 1970 filed by the first respondent was decreed. As against the same, the appellant filed appeals A.S.Nos.433 and 434 of 1974 on the file of District Court, South Arcot District, Cuddalore. The learned District Judge allowed both the appeals by judgment and decree dated 13.7.1979. Pursuant to the said decree, the appellant ought to have submitted the document for registration within 30 days from the date of judgment. As the appellant was not well, he could not present the document for registration within the time prescribed under Statute. However, he presented the document for registration on 16.11.1979 before the Sub Registrar. As the statutory period of limitation expired, the Sub Registrar refused to register the document. The appellant filed I.A.No.86 of 1980 for extension of time for presenting the document for registration. The said I.A. was dismissed. Hence the present suit has been filed for specific performance.

2. The second respondent remained ex parte.

3. The first respondent contested the claim of the appellant. The second respondent died and C.M.P.Nos.1674 to 1676 of 2001 have been filed for condoning the delay for setting aside the abatement and to bring her legal representatives on record.

4. The defence put forth by the respondents is that the appellant having failed to exercise his right under the earlier decree for compulsory registration, this suit is not maintainable. Further the suit is barred by limitation.

5. The trial Court, after considering the various precedents cited by both the counsel as well as the evidence and pleadings, by its judgment and decree dated 7.9.1983 decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the first respondent preferred an appeal A.S.No.139 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Villupuram. The appellant herein filed the cross-objection so far as the rejection of the claim for damages is concerned.

6. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering the materials available on record, had allowed the appeal, setting aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that the second respondent refused to register the document and the Sub Registrar also refused to register the document on 4.11.1969. Hence, the period of limitation commences from 4.1.1969. The three years period came to an end on 3.11.1972. Hence the present suit has been filed only in 1981 for specific performance and as such the suit is barred by limitation. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

7. At the time of admission of the second appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated:

(1)

Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the suit for specific performance wa