The validity of a sale agreement must be proven, and claims for specific performance cannot coexist with adverse possession; time limitations must also be respected.

COMMON JUDGMENT

A.S.Nos.295 & 299 of 2011 have been filed challenging the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.127 of 2008 (originally numbered as O.S No.942 of 2005 on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry) dated

07.01.2011 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.

2. A.S.No.296 of 2011 has been filed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.36 of 2007 dated 07.01.2011 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking in O.S.No.127 of 2008, wherein Jayalakshmi is the plaintiff and Premraja is the defendant.

4. The plaintiff Jayalakshmi originally filed suit in O.S.No.942 of 2005 before the III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry. In the said suit, written statement was filed and issues were framed. In pursuant to the administrative order in TOP No.88 of 2007, the said suit was transferred to III Additional District Judge, Puducherry and renumbered as O.S.No.127 of

2008.

5. This suit in O.S.No.127 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff Jayalakshmi for specific performance of the suit sale agreement dated 18.11.1987. When the suit was in progress, it appears that the defendant Premraja has filed suit in O.S.No.36 of 2007 before the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession, free from superstructures if any. Both the cases were tried separately by the III Additional District Judge and evidence has been separately recorded and exhibits were also marked separately. However, after hearing the arguments, the learned Judge has thought fit to deliver a common judgment since the facts are interdependent with each other.

6. The short facts that are required for determination of all the three appeals are as under -

6(a) The suit property is Plot No.17 in Anna Nagar extension is measuring 40 feet x 60 feet. Alleged agreement of sale is dated 18.11.1987. In the plaint in O.S.No.127 of 2008, it is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that on behalf of the plaintiff, her sister Kanagavalli signed the document under which defendant's father agreed to sell the plot for Rs.59,500/- and defendant's father has also received a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 18.11.1987. Originally, the father of the defendant had agreed to sell Plot No.17 to another party. Therefore, he offered to sell Plot No.19 to the plaintiff which is having lesser extent i.e. 35 feet x 60 feet and made a correction in the sale agreement and plaintiff husband's younger brother Poovendralingam signed as a witness in the said agreement agreeing to execute the sale agreement and receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.47,500/-.

6(b) The plaint further proceeds on the basis that she was delivered possession and enjoyment of Plot No.19 and she is in enjoyment of the property since the date of agreement dated 18.11.1987 and she raised a thatched hut. The plaintiff was not having worry about the registration since the defendant's father had a problem under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and further, payment of Rs.8,000/- on 02.03.1996 and Rs.10,000/- on 02.03.1998 was alleged to have been received by the father of the defendant. After the death of the father, the plaintiff made claims to the present defendant who is the sole legal heir. Originally he promised to execute the sale deed, however failed to do it and attempted to interfere with the possession resulting in police complaint. Therefore, she issued Ex.A2-legal notice dated 12.07.2004 and acknowledgment to the legal notice is marked as Ex.A3. She also made a representation to the police. In the plaint, she has also stated that she had prescriptive title by adverse possession for more than 12 years against the defendant / land owner and reserved rights for the same relief.

6(c) In the written statement, the defendant / land owner has denied various allegations, interalia, contended that there is a material alteration in the plot number, signature of the