The last endorsement could not be construed as a fresh agreement, and the suit was rightly held to be barred by limitation.

1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Karaikal in O.S.No.17 of 2009, which was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A r'esume of facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

a] The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance based on Ex.A1 the agreement to sell, emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby, the latter agreed to sell the property described in the schedule of the plaint, in favour of the former for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,97,255/- and an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Subsequently, there were as many as 12 endorsements made by the defendant extending the period with effect from 16.06.1994 onwards and the last such endorsement was made on 06.04.2006 extending three more months' period for performance. Even thereafter, the defendant had not come forward to execute the sale deed; whereupon, after issuance of notice by the plaintiff to the defendant, the suit was filed with the following prayer:

to pass a judgment and decree directing the defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,47,255/- and execute the sale deed over the suit property in favour of the plaintiff free from all encumbrance and deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff as per the terms of the sale agreement dated 16.03.1994 failing which the plaintiff prays that this court may execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule of property directly and for costs.

(extracted as such)

b] Challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement, the gist and kernel of it would run thus:

(i) The defendant at no point of time entered into such agreement to sell and he did not make any such endorsements as alleged in the plaint.

(ii) The defendant is not the owner of the suit property and there was no occasion for him to sell the property.

Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

c] The trial court framed the issues and additional issue.

d] During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A13. The defendant examined himself as DW1 along with D.W.2 and no document was marked.

e] Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit giving a finding that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The trial court fell into error in construing as though the endorsement made by the defendant on 06.04.2006 was long after the endorsement dated 08.12.1997 ; so to say, there was a gap of nearly 8 ½ years and that such last endorsement was not made within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the trial court wrongly interpreting the endorsements dismissed the suit.

(ii) The endorsement on 6.4.2006 could rightly be taken as a fresh agreement emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant and from that date onwards, if the period of three years and three months is calculated, it is obvious that the suit was filed well within the period of limitation as per Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act.

(iii) The trial court did not decide anything about the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract.

(iv) The conduct of the defendant in dishing out the false plea that the agreement itself was not executed by him, was not taken into consideration by the trial court