Contractual obligations in specific performance suits require timely action; failure to act within statutory limitation renders claims void.

Judgment

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.:- This is defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide which the appeal filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was allowed, judgment and decree dated 16.03.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad was modified and the suit for specific performance filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their original status.

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.12.1994 stated to have been executed by the defendant vide which she agreed to sell a plot measuring 171.18 sq. yds. (fully described in the plaint) situated in the premises known as “TCC Complex”, Sector-10, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the disputed plot’). It was averred that the said agreement to sell had been executed by the defendant vide which she had agreed to sell the disputed plot to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 1400/- per sq. yds. The possession was handed over at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. Rs. 50,000/- was paid as earnest money by way of a cheque dated 04.12.1994. A receipt-cum-agreement was executed in this behalf. A further sum of Rs. 25,000/- in cash was paid on 17.12.1994 and a receipt was executed. Rs. 25,000/- was again paid on 20.12.1994 and again a receipt was executed. Both receipts were duly signed by the defendant and were handed over to the plaintiffs.

2.1 It was averred that plaintiff No.2 was the son of plaintiff No.1 and was carrying on his business of sale of steel in the disputed plot under the name and style of “Anil Steel”. An RCC Hall and an office had also been constructed from where he was operating his business. It was averred that the plaintiffs had been requesting the defendant to get the sale deed registered but she kept on putting off the same. Later on, the defendant disclosed the fact that she herself had not got the sale deed executed in her favour from the original owner of the disputed plot and accordingly, she requested the plaintiffs to wait till she got the sale deed executed in her favour. Plaintiff No.2, in the meanwhile, continued his business of sale of steel in the property without any objection from the side of the defendant. Since the defendant did not get the sale deed executed in their favour, the plaintiffs came to know that sale deed in her favour had been registered on 22.07.2003 but she had not given any information to them with regard to the same. She became greedy and was intending to commit breach of the agreement to sell. A notice dated 09.03.2004 was issued by plaintiff No.1 to the defendant which was duly received by her on 11.03.2004. She had been called upon to get the sale deed executed but no response was received. Finally, on 30.03.2004, she refused to get the sale deed executed.

2.2 It was averred that plaintiff No.1 was and had always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/-. However, the defendant was bent upon to commit breach of the agreement to sell. Under the circumstances, the suit was filed.

3. The suit was opposed by the defendant. Preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, the suit being time barred, the same being bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessa