The plaintiff's failure to prove the authenticity of the sale agreement and readiness and willingness to perform the contract led to the suit being barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2015 in O.S.No.12779 of 2010 on the file of III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

1. The appellants herein are the legal heirs of the deceased Pattammal. The suit was filed against them by one Arumugasamy seeking relief of specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property and permanent injunction restraining them and their agent from altering the physical features of the suit property or creating any encumbrance or charge over it.

2. The suit was laid on the premises that one late Arumugam was the owner of the suit schedule property, which was purchased by him from Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. He put up construction of three rooms and four shops in the said property. The plaintiff entered into a rental agreement with Arumugam in the year 1987 to run a provision shop in shop No.3. The tenancy was renewed time to time. The plaintiff continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the shop in the said suit property as a tenant. In the year 1999, the said Arumugam fell ill seriously. At the time, Arumugam and his wife Pattammal approached the plaintiff for money to meet out his medical expenses and offered to sell the suit property for Rs.10,10,000/-. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for the said sum and entered into an agreement with Arumugam on 19.11.1999. With the knowledge of his wife and children, who are defendants 1 to 5, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to Arumugam on the date of agreement. Money was received by his wife Pattammal. They agreed to adjust Rs.30,000/- given as advance for the shop towards the sale consideration. Arumugam promised to execute the sale deed, after obtaining the sale document from Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on receiving the balance sale consideration. Due to prolong illness, Arumugam died in the year 2001. He continues to pay rent to the first defendant. The first defendant approached for money and received Rs.50,000/- on 05.05.2002 and another Rs.50,000/- on 01.09.2004. In total, the plaintiff has paid Rs.6,30,000/- towards the sale consideration. While so, suddenly he received notice dated 25.03.2005 from an Advocate on behalf of the 5th defendant claiming rent. Reply was sent to the fifth defendant asking for certified copy of the document under which the fifth defendant is claiming title and rent. Thereafter, in view of rival claim for the rent, he stopped paying the rent to the shop in occupation from the month of April 2005. Since there was no response from the fifth defendant for production of document demanded, the plaintiff paid the withheld rent to the first defendant as before. In the said circumstances, the third parties are visiting the property almost daily and force him to vacate the premises dehors of his agreement with the landlord.

3. On 11.10.2005 at around 10.30 hours, strangers came to the shop and threatened him serious consequences, if he fail to vacate the premises. Hence, he filed suit for permanent injunction fearing threat to his life and enjoyment of the suit property before the City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No. 6741/2005 on 14.10.2005. Thereafter, when he tendered the rent on 10.10.2005, the first defendant refused to receive it. Immediately, on 13.10.2005, the plaintiff sent a notice through his counsel calling upon the first respondent to intimate her bank account number for deposit of the money rent. There was no reply from her. Hence, he sent the rent through money order. But after receiving it, the first defendant returned back the money through another money order. Hence, the plaintiff filed R.C.O.P.No.810/2006 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai for deposit of rent. However, the said petition was dismissed. In the said circumstances, the present suit is filed for enforcing the agreement entered with Arumugam in the year 1999.

4. The defendants 4 and 5 fi