JUDGMENT

The appellants as plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No.331 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tiruchirappalli, against the respondents/defendants for the relief of specific performance and for return of a sum of Rs.6,240/- which has been paid in excess of the actual sale price or in the alternative for return of sale consideration of Rs.7,95,000/- with 12% interest per annum. After trial, the trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 10.05.2006, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs as appellants have filed this appeal. 2. Brief averments stated in the plaint are as follows:-

The plaint schedule properties are the absolute properties of the defendants 1 to 4 and their father Late Usman Ali. In the year 1992, for the purpose of acquiring the suit properties on behalf of the members of the 1st plaintiff society, the plaintiffs approached the defendants 1 to 4 and Usman Ali and they agreed to sell the suit properties to an extent of 6.26 acres at the rate of Rs.1,26,000/- per acre on 20.03.1992. A sale agreement was entered into by the parties on 20.03.1992, on which date, the plaintiffs paid initial advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but no time limit was fixed for execution of the sale deed. According to the plaintiffs, thereafter, on various dates, a total sum of Rs.7,95,000/- has been paid by the plaintiffs which is more than the total sale consideration. It was agreed by the parties that the plaintiffs should take steps to get lay out approval of the suit property from the Director of Town Planning, Chennai. While the approval process was pending, the defendants filed caveat applications on 06.09.1999 and 07.09.1999, which according to the plaintiffs amounts to refusal of the defendants to execute the sale deed. Thus, the plaintiffs sent an advocate notice to the defendants on 15.09.1999 to execute the sale deed and the said notice returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. Hence, the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement are as follows:-

The sale agreement dated 20.03.1992 is admitted and four months time was fixed for execution of the sale deed. The mode of payment stipulated in the sale agreement had not been complied with by the plaintiffs and they have made payment of Rs.3,80,000/- only on various dates and not Rs.7,95,000/- as alleged in the plaint. The suit is barred by limitation. The death of Usman Ali/father of the defendants 1 to 4 was not informed to the plaintiffs. All the legal heirs of Usman Ali have not been added as parties and therefore, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and no suit notice was served on the defendants. The caveat notice was issued when the plaintiffs who lost every right attempted to give trouble to the defendants. Further, mere caveat notice will not give rise to cause of action. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable?

(ii) Whether an unregistered society is not entitled to file a suit?

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(iv) Whether the suit is barred for non joinder of necessary parties? (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of specific performance and return of money?

(vi) Are the plaintiffs barred from claiming the relief of specific performance?

(vii) What other reliefs are the plaintiffs are entitled to?

5. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 12 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A12. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined as DW1 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B4.

6. The trial Court, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit, by judgment and decree dated 10.05.2006. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submi