Specific performance suit for 15-year-old sale agreement is barred by limitation absent evidence of refusal.

The Plaintiff (Appellant) filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on a registered agreement to sell (*Banakhat*) dated 25.01.1995 for property in Village Narol, Ahmedabad

The Plaintiff claimed the full consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/- was paid by December 1995

A notarized possession agreement and a Power of Attorney were executed on the same day as the *Banakhat*

The Plaintiff alleged that despite a joint meeting in April 2010, the Defendants refused to execute the sale deed, leading to the suit in 2010

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 15.02.2025, finding the claim barred by limitation and questioning the Plaintiff’s status as an agriculturist

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that it was hit by the Limitation Act.

The court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the right of appeal from a final decree

For specific performance, the court scrutinized the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963, noting that the agreement to sell specified a six-month period for execution, though it allowed for automatic extensions for obtaining title clearance

Furthermore, the court relied on the evidentiary principle established in *Rangammal v. Kuppuswami and Another* (2011) 12 SCC 220, which holds that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish their case independently of the weaknesses in the defendant's case

The High Court observed that while the agreement to sell was dated 25.01.1995 and full payment was completed by 12.12.1995, the Plaintiff waited 15 years (until 2010) to file the suit

The court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the delay was due to pending title clearances.

It noted that since a General Power of Attorney had been granted to a member of the Plaintiff’s own family to obtain the title clearance, any delay in doing so could not be attributed to the Defendants

The Court found no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claim that a cause of action arose only in April 2010 via a "joint meeting"

Additionally, the Plaintiff failed to produce evidence (such as Village Form No. 6) before the Trial Court to prove his status as an agriculturist, which was a prerequisite for the transaction

Following *Rangammal*, the court emphasized that the Defendants' failure to lead evidence did not absolve the Plaintiff of the primary burden to prove a timely and valid claim

The High Court dismissed the First Appeal and confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment and decree dated 15.02.2025

The connected Civil Application for interim relief was also disposed of