The court affirmed that an agreement's genuineness must be substantiated, and failure to act within the limitation period can bar specific performance claims.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2025 The defendant in a suit for recovery of possession as well as the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance has come up with this appeal against the concurrent findings by the First Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur in O.S.No.2340 of 2001 and O.S.No.2948 of 2002 as confirmed by the Additional District Court-III, Thrissur in AS No.186/2013 and 194/2013.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are as follows:

3. Plaintiff in O.S.No.2340/2001 is the legal heir of one Sebastian. The property originally belonged to the mother of plaintiff, Kochanna. Kochanna died on 14.01.1992. After the death of Kochanna her husband Sebastian filed a petition before the District Court, Thrissur for obtaining probate. On the death of Sebastian his sole legatee under the Will, the proceedings for probate were dismissed. Sebastian died on 19.09.1994. While he was alive, an agreement of sale dated 21.01.1994 was written between the defendant and Sebastian. The defendant is a social service club and an incorporated association. The total consideration fixed under the sale agreement was Rs.10,000/-. As a part of the performance of the contract the defendant is stated to have been put in possession of the property covered by the agreement stating that the capacity of the defendant as a tenant stands extinguished from the date of agreement of sale. Later, the defendant is stated to have made constructions in the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the agreement of sale is falsehood and not genuine and therefore the occupation of the defendant in the property could only be construed as a tresspass.

4. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit stating that the possession of the defendant over the plaint schedule property is statutorily protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 . Along with the other contentions, the defendant in the said case filed OS No.2948/2002 before the aforesaid court seeking for specific performance of the agreement against the legal heirs of the deceased Sebastian. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A7 series were produced and on behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B40 were produced. PWs 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and DWs 1 to 6 were examined on behalf of the defendants. Exts.C1 and C2 are the reports of the Advocate Commissioner and Ext.C3 is the report of the Deputy Works Manager for General Manager, India Security Press. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the agreement of sale dated 21.01.1994 is not a genuine agreement. One crucial factor which weighed with the trial court to hold that the agreement of sale is not genuine was due to the date of the execution of Ext.B4 on 21.01.1994 on a stamp paper circulated and printed only on 04.03.2011. The trial court also found that defendant/appellant herein failed to prove the signature of the deceased Sebastian in the agreement of sale. It was further found that the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation. Accordingly, OS No.2340/2001 was decreed in part and OS No.2948/2002 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present appeals are preferred.

5. Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Smt.Anusree B appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the courts below erred egregiously in holding that the agreement of sale is not genuine. The appellant had adduced sufficient ev