A suit for specific performance is maintainable if no time frame is stipulated in the agreement, allowing the action to be initiated within three years from the date of refusal to execute the sale deed.

O R D E R

The defendants 1, 5 and 6, being unsuccessful in an attempt to reject the plaint in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.4638 of 2020 are the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajaraman and Mr.V.V.Sairam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.Manivanannan for Mrs.Karpagavarthini, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would first and foremost state that the suit being one for specific performance and even according to the suit documents, the land belonging to a Temple, there is a clear bar for sale of the suit property without prior sanction of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department under Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 ( in short ‘HR &CE Act’). It is therefore contended that the prayer itself is not maintainable and further the primordial ground on which the rejection of the plaint was sought for is that the suit is also hopelessly barred by limitation.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel would rely on the following decisions:-

(i) Sri Mukunth Bhavan Trust and others Vs. Shrimant Chhaptrapati Udayan Raje Pratpsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another , reported in, (2024) SCC Online SC 3844;

(ii) Shabeer (Dead) through Lrs Vs. Anjuman (Since Deaceased) through Lrs., reported in 2023 INSC 898 ;

(iii) Paramasivam Vs. Elumalai , in S.A.No.175 of 2018 dated 22.03.2024 ;

(iv) The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, and another Vs. G.Nanda and others , in A.S. No.423 & 925 of 2025 dated 08.01.2024;

(v) K.Ithayaselvi Vs. Sub Registrar, Sub-Registration Officer, Mylapore , reported in W.P. No.675 of 2010 dated 01.02.2010; and (vi) Rajesh Kumar Vs. Anand Kumar and Ors , reported in Civil Appeal No.7840 of 2023 dated 17.05.2024.

(vii) Vinod Popli Vs. Ragini Popli and Others , reported in AIR 2015 (NOC) 1122 (DEL.); and (viii) Suman Lata Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma and others , reported in (2017) SCC Online Del 11395,

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent would submit that the suit has been filed within three years from the date of refusal and therefore, it is clearly maintainable under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and there is no case made out for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The learned counsel would also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Kumarakurubaran Vs. P.Narayanaan and others , reported in (2025) SCC Online 975 and Ramilaben Devji Jodhani Vs. Ishvarlal Mangnlal Sha , reported in AIR Online 2023 Guj 1515. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would adopt the arguments of Mr.T.R.Rajaraman and Mr.V.V.Sairam and state that they are bonafide purchasers for consideration and their purchase has to be necessarily protected and the suit being clearly barred by limitation, the plaint ought to have been rejected.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The sale agreement is entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 10.09.2001. Subsequently, the plaintiff has passed away and the agreement is sought to be enforced against his legal heirs who are defendants 5 and 6. The defendants 2 to 4 are purchasers from defendants 5 and 6. According to them, they are bonafide purchasers, without notice of the agreement of sale