BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 29.04.2025 Pronounced on : 13.05.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN S.A(MD)No.427 of 2004

1.S.Babulal

2.Ranjithkumar 3.Dineshkumar 4.Sureshkumar (A1 to A3 represented by their Power Agent / A4)

(The 4th Plaintiff has been recognized as power agent of other plaintiffs 1 to 3 by order dated 19.07.2000 in I.A.No.530 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam.)

... Appellants / Appellants / Plaintiffs Vs

1.Sulochana

2.R.Mallika ... Defendants / Respondents / Respondents Prayer : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 20.10.2003 in A.S.No.32 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.324 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif of Kumbakonam.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Subramanian For R1 and R2 : No appearance

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated

20.10.2003 in A.S.No.32 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.324 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif of Kumbakonam.

2. The suit property originally belongs to one Govindasamy Pillai, he executed a registered will dated 20.01.1954, bequeathing the suit property to his only son called Thangavel Pillai. After the death of Govinda Pillai, Thangavel Pillai became the owner of the property.

Thangavel Pillai was married to Amsavalli and Sulochana. There were no issues. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with Amsavalli and the first defendant on 17.10.1991. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 4,20,001/-. Rs.70,001/- was received as advance. Later on 30.11.1991, Amsavalli and the first defendant received Rs.30,000/-. As per the agreement dated 03.09.1989 and 16.10.1989, the plaintiff approached the first defendant and the Amsavalli for execution of the sale deed. At that time, he came to know that in respect of the second item of the suit property, litigation was pending. So, later, sale agreement was revised by incorporating the recital that time for the specific performance was fixed within one year after the disposal of the litigation pending before the Madras High Court. Later, Amsavalli died leaving behind the second defendant as adopted daughter. The second defendant is bound by the agreement dated 17.10.1991. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract without waiting for the disposal of the litigation, but no information was given by the defendants regarding the pendency of the litigation. The defendants issued a reply notice on

26.09.2000 which contained false and untennable allegations.

3. Originally, the plaintiffs were the tenant in respect of the suit properties. But from the date of the agreement he is in possession as intending purchaser. On 16.07.2000, the defendants through the husband of the second defendant came to the suit property and threatened the plaintiffs to vacate the premises within a week. So the suit is laid for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from anyway interfering into the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant adopted by the second defendant, the original ownership of the property is admitted. Similarly, the sale agreement is also admitted. But the sale agreement dated 17.10.1991 is barred by limitation. So the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit on the basis of the time barred agreement. The plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The contra pleading is denied through the reply notice dated 29.06.2000, they have given the particulars of the litigation. The alleged threat dated 14.06.2000 is false. The plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for specific performance and not for the relief