Specific performance requires a valid, signed agreement and timely action; failure to meet these can dismiss claims.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. Thamilselvi, J.

The appellant herein is the plaintiff and he filed the suit in O.S.No.906 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur against the defendants seeking for the relief of direction directing the 1^st defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit property and consequential relief of declaration as well as permanent injunction. On hearing both sides, the trial judge partly dismissed the suit with regard to 1^st and 2^nd relief and partly allowed with regard to 3^rd relief. Against which, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.59 of 2011 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, wherein the first appellate judge independently analysed the facts and evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the findings of trial judge. Challenging concurrent findings of courts below, the plaintiff had preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit stating that the suit property was purchased by the 1^st defendant under register sale deed dated 22.08.1956 and she entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 01.12.1990 and that the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- on the date of agreement of sale. The original documents were handed over to plaintiff, thereby he was put in possession. Thereafter, the balance sale consideration was paid on various dates respectively and mutation of records was made in favour of plaintiff. Subsequently, the 2^nd defendant purchased the property from the 1^st defendant on 27.05.2005. After the purchase made by the 2^nd defendant, the plaintiff lodged a complaint in the year 2005 and thereafter, the suit was filed nearly about 14 years later and he has not taken any steps to execute sale deed based on the alleged sale agreement, besides, the 1^st defendant is disputing the sale agreement stating that he never intended to sell the property and D.W.1 and 2 have supported the claim of defendants. The plaintiff would also submit that possession was handed over to him, but the alleged sale agreement Ex.A1 is unregistered agreement, through which the plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration, however, having known the sale deed executed in favour of 2^nd defendant, the plaintiff had not asked for any consequential relief.

4. Both parties adduced their evidence before the trial court. The learned judge, on perusal of Ex.A1 alleged sale agreement, found that the document was not contained signature of both parties in all the pages. In page No.2 the 1^st defendant onlt put his left thump impression and the other endorsement of subsequent payment also not been properly attested. Three months time was fixed, but nearly about 14 years later, the plaintiff approached the court without sufficient materials and the delay was also not properly explained. It is very well known to the plaintiff that the alleged sale agreement was a fabricated one. Furthermore, the alleged sale agreement is unregistered one, through which he claimed possession of the suit property, it requires valid registration, thereby hit by Sec.53-A of Transfer of Property Act. Also considering the said legal proposition, the suit was dismissed. Against which, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, wherein the first appellate judge on analysing the facts and evidence, dismissed the appeal by confirming the findings of trial judge. Challenging the concurrent findings, the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for ap