The limitation period for a specific performance suit is three years from the date fixed in the contract, and failure to file within this period results in dismissal, regardless of the parties' intentions.

JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and decree dated 26.07.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Anekal in R.A.no.204/2006 (Old no.R.A.no.79/2006) setting aside judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006 passed by Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Anekal, in O.S.no.22/2005, this appeal is filed.

2. Appellant herein was original plaintiff in O.S.no.22/2005; while respondent herein was defendant, for sake of convenience, they shall referred to as such in this appeal.

3. Facts as stated are that, O.S.no.22/2005 was filed by plaintiff stating that defendant was owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing Sy.no.1/12 measuring 28 guntas ('suit property' for short) situated at Nekkundi Dommasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. In respect of same, defendant had entered into agreement of sale with plaintiff on 16.03.1988 agreeing to sell said suit property for total sale consideration of `25,100/- accepting `13,000/- as advance sale consideration and agreeing to execute sale deed by receiving balance amount of `12,100/- within three months. It was further stated that on 10.04.1988 as per request of defendant, plaintiff paid further amount of `12,000/- leaving balance of only `100/- to be paid. It was stated though plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and called upon defendant to receive balance amount and execute sale deed, defendant postponed it on one pretext or other. On 17.12.2004 plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant. As due to oversight suit property was not mentioned, another legal notice dated 03.01.2001 was issued.

When defendant did not come forward to execute sale deed, cause of action to file suit arose and suit was filed on 17.01.2005.

4. Upon service of suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying plaint averments in toto except that defendant was absolute owner of suit property. Execution of agreement of sale on 16.03.1988 and receipt of advance sale consideration were denied. Allegation was made that agreement of sale was forged. It was asserted that upon receipt of legal notice issued by plaintiff, defendant replied on 10.01.2005, denying agreement of sale and obligation of defendant to execute sale deed.

5. It was asserted that suit property was purchased by one M. Chowda Reddy on 17.08.1987 under registered sale deed and was in possession of same and entries in record of rights stood in his name. It was also asserted that defendant had offered suit property as security for loan obtained from Sericulture Growers and Farmers Service Co-operative Society Ltd., Sarjapur and said document was registered in office of Sub-Registrar at Annexure-K dated 03.05.1998. Suit was also opposed on ground of being barred by limitation, as alleged agreement of sale was dated 16.03.1988 and suit was filed after lapse of 17 years.

6. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following issues:

(1) Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property in this favour for Rs. 25,100/-?

(2) Whether plaintiff proves that on 16-3- 1988 the defendant had executed the sit agreement and had received earnest money of Rs.13,000/-?

(3) Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant had received Rs.12,000/- on 10-4-1988 and had delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in his favour?

(4) If findings to issues 1 to 3 are in the affirmative whether plaintiff proves that he was/is ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

(5) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant has failed to perform his part of the contract?

(6) W