The plaintiff must establish readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and the suit must be filed within the limitation period. Additionally, the court may dismiss a claim based on the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure if not raised in the trial court.

Defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6 in OS No.12883 of 1996 and OS No.1356 of 1997 are the appellants in the present appeals.

1. The case of the Plainitff in OS.No.12883 of 1996:

2. The suit in OS.No.12883 of 1996 was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 27.08.1990 entered into between defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff. There is also a prayer to declare the sale deeds dated 17.11.1995 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendants 3 to 6 as null and void. O.S. No.1356 of 1997 is also a suit which was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.12883 of 1996, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property.

3. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell an extent of One ground and 1250sq.ft. out of 2 grounds and 553sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.6,25,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance and the balance of Rs.4,25,000/- was agreed to be paid to the State Bank of India, in discharge of the loan borrowed by the defendants 1 and 2. As per the agreement a period of 3 months was fixed for the performance of the contract. The agreement also provides that the period could be extended. In the meantime a suit was filed by the grand children of the 2nd defendant in OS.No.10045 of 1992 on 11.01.1991 as C.S.No.104 of 1991. In the said suit injunction was granted restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from selling the suit property to the plaintiff. It is contended by the plaintiff that C.S.No.104 of 1991 was filed at the instance 1st and 2nd defendants, who have set up their grand children to file the suit claiming partition. It is also the claim of the plaintiff that the period fixed under the agreement was extended at on two occasions on 24.11.1990 and 26.01.1991. The extension on 26.01.1991 was up to 15.02.1991. The suit in OS No.12883 of 1996 came to be filed on 13.08.1996 seeking specific performance. The plaintiff would contend that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract the defendants were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and they had always been attempting to wriggle out of the contract. The suit in C.S.No.104 of 1991 which was renumbered as O.S.No.7396 of 1996 is one of the attempts made by the defendants to wriggle out of the contract. It is also contended that the defendants filed a suit in OS No.7111 of 1994, claiming damages for use and occupation from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27.08.1990 in respect of the suit property.

4. The suit was resisted by defendants 3 to 6, who claim to have purchased the property from defendants 1 and 2 under a sale deed dated 17.11.1995. The defendants 3 to 6 while admitting the agreement dated 27.08.1990 would contend that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under the agreement. After paying an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and a small amount of Rs.25,000/- to State Bank of India the amounts due under the mortgage were not discharged by the plaintiff. According to them, the plaintiff has no funds to discharge the mortgage. It is also contended that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.10045 of 1992 as early as on 10.11.1992 for a bare injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with his possession in which he claimed that he was ready and willing to deposit the balance amount, and also on the basis false allegations that defendants 1 and 2 are attempting to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The said suit in OS No.10045 of 1992 was eventually dismissed for default on 17.07.2003. According to defendants 3 to 6 this would show that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Even though he had a cause of action for seeking the relief of specific performance on 10.11.1992, he chose to institute a suit for bare injunction alone therefore, the present suit according to defendants 3 to 6 is barred by