The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for specific performance was not barred by limitation based on the refutation of the contract and the lack of action taken by the petitioners to set aside the ex-parte decree and the sale deed executed through court.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal of Section 47 Application made in O.S. No. 2543 of 1997.

2. The Revision Petitioners would contend that the ex-parte decree, which was obtained in O.S. No.2543 of 1997, was first came to their knowledge only on the notice issued in the execution stage. In fact, earlier, they filed Application to set aside the ex-parte that too, with delay and the same was dismissed. But their main contention was that the Suit itself is not maintainable as originally the date of agreement was 20.12.1982 and the period for Specific Performance was three months and thereafter, they have not issued any notice of their willingness to perform their contract. Thereafter, they issued a notice dated 26.2.1992 which was replied on 8.3.1992. Immediately, thereafter, a Suit was filed in the year 1992 seeking specific performance. In the said Suit, they contended that the Suit is barred by limitation on the ground that the agreement is of the year 1982 and the period is only three months. Unfortunately, the Suit was decreed ex-parte and for which, they have also filed Application to set aside the ex-parte decree, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, they have filed Section 47 Application stating that the decree itself is nullity since it is barred by limitation. But the said Application was also dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, they have come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. At the time of admission itself, three questions were posed before the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, namely,-

(1) For a period of three months, originally made in the agreement of sale, was there any notice issued by the present Revision Petitioners cancelling the document? When was actually agreement cancelled because in the notice dated 26.2.1992, there was no mention about the date of cancellation of the agreement.

(2) Whether any proceedings initiated under RCOP Act or any Suit filed by the owner/Revision Petitioners?

(3) Whether any rent was collected and any steps were taken to take possession?

4. The short facts pertaining to the case is that the Agreement of Sale was executed as early as on 12.12.1982 with a condition that the sale has to be completed within three months. It is an admitted fact that neither party, after the period of agreement, did not proceed further. But it is also an agreed fact that the possession was handed over to the Respondents pursuant to the agreement, as part performance of the contract. The first notice was issued only on 26.2.1992 by the present Petitioners’ mother Dhanalakshmi to the Respondents stating that believing the representation made by the Respondents, the Dhanalakshmi has executed agreement though it is stated as three months in the agreement, the period was extended by one year so that she could collect the money. In that notice, it was further stated that the original party, Stephensen died and that he was a Tenant in the property and that calling upon him to vacate and hand over the possession of the property and also claimed arrears of rent right from 1982 since the rent has become barred by limitation, restricting the rent only for a period of three years. Therefore, it is very clear even from the admission of the Dhanalakshmi in the notice dated 26.2.1992 that the Respondents’ predecessor and the Respondents were in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement and the period of three months has been extended further to one year and after that they have not taken any steps for even cancellation nor it is mentioned when it was cancelled. But new theory was stated in notice that he became Tenant of the property from 1982 pursuant to the possession and agreed rent of Rs. 300/- was paid from 1982 to 1992 and thereafter, she claims the arrears of rent only for three years as the other arrears barred by limitation and she seeks for possession of the property for which detailed reply was given as early as on 8.3.19