ORDER :

The order challenged in this Revision is one granting leave to the plaintiff to reserve liberty to sue for the relief of recovery of money at a subsequent point of time on the same cause of action.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the present suit and the application for leave are as follows:

2.1. The property in question originally belonged to one Rathinasamy and his son Viswanathan, they executed a power of attorney in favour of one Rangasamy on 07.05.2009. The said Rangasamy sold the property to the present plaintiff on 04.01.2010. The plaintiff had sold the property to the first defendant on 30.11.2010 under a registered Sale Deed which has been registered as document No.13867 of 2010. The plaintiff filed the instant suit for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to measure the property with the help of Taluk Surveyor and to fix the boundary stones in the property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the properties.

2.2. The claim of the plaintiff is that on 30.11.2010 itself, defendants 1 and 2 had entered into an agreement with him, which is titled as a Consent Deed, agreeing to have the property measured by the Taluk Surveyor after evicting the occupants namely Rathinasamy and Viswanathan, to pay consideration for the entire land that is found to exist at Rs.1,40,000/- per cent. It was also agreed that defendants 1 and 2 would retain a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- out of the said consideration as expenses for evicting Rathinasamy and Viswanathan. It is this Consent Deed which is now sought to be enforced by the plaintiff by seeking a relief of mandatory injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an Application in IA No.1509 of 2016 seeking liberty to sue for money at a subsequent point of time on the same cause of action.

3. This application was resisted by the defendants contending that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to reserve liberty to sue for the main relief at a later point of time. He should seek for the main relief along with the other auxiliary reliefs and he cannot seek the auxiliary reliefs without seeking the main relief.

4. The learned Trial Judge considering the nature of the agreement held that only after measuring the property and ascertaining the extent, the plaintiff would be able to crystallise the consideration or the money that would be due to him under the Consent Deed. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application.

5. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to reserve the main relief in the suit and seek auxiliary reliefs. He would further argue that the very suit is barred by limitation and therefore, reservation of a right to sue on the basis of certain fact to be ascertained in a suit that is on the face of it barred by limitation is not possible. It is the further contention of Mr.P.Valliappan, that the reasons for reservation of the right have not been properly explained. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virgo Industries (Eng.) P. Ltd v. Venturetech Solutions P. Ltd, reported in 2012 (5) CTC 359 (SC). My attention is also drawn by Mr.P.Valliappan, to the judgments of this Court in Subbiah and others v. Thiruneelapandian and others, reported in 2017 (6) CTC 1 (Mad) and R.Chendilvel v. G.Damodaran and others, reported in 2015 (2) CTC 129 (Mad).

6. Contending contra, Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the plaintiff is forced to seek liberty to reserve the prayer for recovery of money, inasmuch as, the actual amount due could be ascertained only after measurement of the property. According to him, since the defendants are not cooperating in measuring the property, he is forced to file the present suit seeking mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

7. Drawing my attention to the terms of the agreement, Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, learned