Limitation for specific performance claims requires examination of facts to allow trials, not mere rejection based on documents.

COMMON JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.]

Challenging the order passed in A.No.2920 of 2010 in C.S.No.764 of 2001, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2(i).According to the appellant/plaintiff, the respondents 1 to 9, along with one E.Sampath, one of the sons of P.Elumalai Naicker and Chockammal, wife of P.Elumalai Naicker approached the appellant for the sale of the suit property at the rate of Rs.5,20,000/- per ground claiming that they are the absolute owners of the suit property. They also informed the appellant that there were 34 hutment dwellers in the suit property, who are the encroachers. They agreed to vacate them and handover the vacant possession. Believing the said representation, the appellant entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.07.1990, agreeing to purchase the suit property at the rate of Rs.5,20,000/- per ground. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance on the date of agreement. It was agreed that the appellant will vacate the encroachers/hutment dwellers and a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- will be retained by the appellant from total sale consideration to pay compensation for evicting the hutment dwellers and take possession from them. The appellant subsequently paid Rs.3,00,000/- on 07.03.1991 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 27.07.1991. The vendors acknowledged the payment of total sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. In fact, there were 41 hutment dwellers in the suit property. Some of them had put up pucca construction, claiming to be the tenants under the vendors and claiming rights under the City Tenants Protection Act. The vendors were not cooperating with the appellant for evicting the encroachers. On the other hand, they were instigating some of the encroachers to demand more money for vacating the suit property. The appellant was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed as appellant required vacant site for future development of his educational institution. Some of the encroachers filed suits in the City Civil Court and obtained interim injunction. The appellant spent 25 Lakhs than the agreed amount of 15 Lakhs and vacated hutment dwellers. After vacating the encroachers, the appellant took vacant possession of the land, improved the property, put up a compound wall, appointed a Security to keep the property protected from the encroachers. The appellant during October, 1992 itself sent draft sale deed to the respondents for approval. The appellant and his agent were meeting the respondents 1 to 9 and others very often and requested them to cooperate for execution of the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. But the respondents failed to cooperate to finalize the sale deed.

2(ii).On 28.01.1994, the appellant called upon the respondents 1 and 7, to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. On 29.01.1994, the respondents 1 & 7 intimated the appellant that they will cooperate for execution of the sale deed, but demanded more money. There were some interse dispute among the respondents 1 to 9, 6^th defendant and 4^th defendant. The 4^th defendant filed O.S.No.12458 of 1996 and O.S.No.3148 of 1999 on the file of the XII City Civil Court, Chennai for partition against the respondents 1 to 9 and 6^th defendant. The appellant also was made as party defendant in the said suit. At one stage, many suits were filed by the encroachers against the appellant in respect of the suit property and the said suits were pending on the file of the VI, VII, XI and XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. In order to safeguard possession of the suit property, the appellant had to file variou