ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, in I.A.No.1023 of 2014 in O.S.No.263 of 2014, thereby dismissing the petition for rejection of plaint.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents filed suit in O.S.No.263 of 2014, for bare injunction in respect of the suit property. The cause of action for filing the suit is that the petitioner's father entered in to a agreement for sale with the second defendant and the respondents herein on 01.12.1993 in respect of the suit property for the total sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-, in which a sum of Rs.30,000/- paid as advance on the date of agreement. The time for execution of sale deed was fixed as eleven months. Accordingly, the defendants ought to have been executed the sale deed on or before 31.10.1994.

3. While it being so, on 10.04.1994, the balance sale consideration was also received by the petitioner's father. Thereafter the entire possession of the suit property handed over to the respondents and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They also paid the revenue dues to the revenue authorities. When it being so, on 17.11.2010, the petitioner's father died. Utilizing the said circumstances, the petitioner and the second defendant attempted to sell the property to the third parties. Therefore, the respondents filed the present suit for bare injunction and also claimed right over the suit property under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the said suit, the petitioner filed petition in I.A.No.1023 of 2014 to reject the suit. Since the same was dismissed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even according to the respondents they entered into agreement for sale on 01.12.1993 with the petitioner's father and the second defendant. After the period of 21 years, the respondents filed this present suit that too claiming right under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit is clearly barred by limitation, since in the agreement for sale, the time for execution of sale deed was fixed only eleven months and they ought to have been filed the suit within the time from the date of expiry of the agreement viz., 31.10.1994. After the agreement for sale, the agreement holder viz., the respondents have not done any Act in furtherance to the contract as such they cannot claim any benefit under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondents are brother and sister and the respondents put their prayer in illusory manner and filed suit as against the co-owner of the property. Therefore, the plaint itself liable to be struck off. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) CDJ 2016 MHC 6064 – Parimalam & Ors. Vs. P. Mohanraj & Anr.

(ii) CDJ 2016 MHC 6400 – Sudanthiradevi & Ors. Vs. Jahir Hussain & Anr.

(iii) 2020 (4) CTC 471 – Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali & Ors.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents filed suit for bare injunction. They entered into the agreement for sale on 01.12.1993 with the petitioner's father viz., Kaliappa Gounder. After receipt of the sale consideration, the said Kaliappa Gounder died without executing any registered sale deed. From the date of agreement itself, the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The entire revenue records were mutated in their name and they are paying Kist to the revenue authorities. While being so, the petitioner and the second defendant were trying to execute the sale deed in favour of the third party. Therefore, the respondents caused legal notice on 12.06.2014 and filed the present suit for bare injunction. Therefore, the entire plain is bundle of facts and it cannot be rejected on i