The court ruled that an unregistered sale agreement lacking essential details cannot support a claim for specific performance, especially when the suit is filed after a significant delay.

JUDGMENT :

R. HEMALATHA, J.

1. The appellants are the defendants 11 to 13 in O.S.No.134/2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The Respondents 1 to 5 filed the said suit for specific performance of contract and for costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is as follows :

The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons of one Ganesa Gounder and the plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the brothers of Ganesa Gounder. One Sundara Murthy Mudaliyar, (the husband of the 1st defendant), Neelakanda Mudaliyar (5th defendant) and Chandrasekara Mudaliyar (husband of the 6th defendant) executed a sale deed in favour of Ganesa Gounder during the year 1988 (Ex.A1) in the presence of witnesses in respect of the suit properties measuring 0.62 1/2 cents in old survey no.234/4 (new survey no.166/4) and 0.70 cents in old survey no.236/4 (new survey no.168/6) of Thiruvakkarai Village, Vanur Taluk, Tindivanam. The sale consideration of Rs.6,500/- was paid by Ganesa Gounder to them on the date of Ex.A1 and he was also put in possession of the suit properties. Ever since the date of purchase, Ganesa Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by paying necessary tax to the Government. After the death of Ganesa Gounder, his sons, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 inherited the suit properties and are also in possession and enjoyment of the same. The sale Deed (Ex.A1) was an unregistered document. While so, the defendants 1 to 5 executed a Power of Attorney, dated 06.02.2008(Ex.B1) in favour of the eleventh defendant. The eleventh defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of the twelfth defendant on11.02.2008 (Ex.B2) and the twelfth defendant in turn executed a registered sale deed, dated 05.11.2008 (Ex.B3) in favour of the thirteenth defendant. According to the plaintiffs, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are not valid documents and in any event the same would not bind them. The plaintiffs also issued a lawyer's notice dated 01.11.2008 (Ex.A4) to the defendants. Though the defendants received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment cards (Ex.A5 and Ex.A6), they did not send any reply notice. They have therefore filed the suit for specific performance of contract.

4. The defendants 1 to 4 and 6 remained absent and were set exparte. The suit was resisted by the other defendants on the following grounds:

i. The unregistered sale agreement (Ex.A1) does not contain the date, month or year on which it was executed.

ii. According to the plaintiffs, the sale agreement was executed in the year 1988. The suit is filed after a lapse of twenty years and therefore it is barred by limitation.

iii. Even if Ex.A1 is construed as a Sale deed, as per the averments in the plaint, the same would not create any title as it has not been registered.

iv. The suit properties belonged to one Seethapathi Mudaliyar and he had three sons by names Sundara Murthy Mudaliyar, Neelakanda Mudaliyar and Chandrasekara Mudaliyar. The defendants 1, 3 and 5 and Chandrasekara Mudaliar were in possession of the suit properties and executed a general Power of Attorney dated 06.02.2008 (Ex.B1) in favour of Chandrasekara Gounder (D11). Based on the Power of Attorney, the properties were sold in favour of Venu Gounder (D12) through a registered sale deed, dated11.02.2008 (Ex.B2). Venu Gounder in turn sold the suit property in favour of Kuppusamy (D13) through a registered sale deed, dated 05.11.2008 (Ex.B3). They therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

i. Whether the plaintiffs 1 to 3 proved