Specific performance claim failed for want of proof, limitation bar, and no established possession for part performance.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the agreement and endorsements were genuine or executed by the first defendant, as suspicious circumstances and unreliable attesting evidence undermined execution. The suit for specific performance and alternative refund was held barred by limitation because no valid date for performance or proved refusal was shown, and the alleged acknowledgments under the Limitation Act were not established. Relief under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was also unavailable because the plaintiff did not prove possession in a legally recognizable form over the undivided share. The dismissal of the suit was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Exs.A-1 to A-3 were true and genuine and proved to have been executed by the first defendant; (ii) Whether the suit for specific performance and alternative refund was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issue (i): Whether Exs.A-1 to A-3 were true and genuine and proved to have been executed by the first defendant.

Analysis: The surrounding circumstances, including the unexplained place of execution, doubtful purchase of stamp paper, inconsistencies in the supporting evidence, and the untrustworthy testimony of the attestors and scribe, created serious suspicion about the documents. The fact that the first defendant remained ex parte did not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving execution and genuineness.

Conclusion: Exs.A-1 to A-3 were not proved to be true and genuine and were not established as executed by the first defendant.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for specific performance and alternative refund was barred by limitation.

Analysis: A suit for specific performance had to be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance, and where no date was fixed, from the date of refusal. The agreement contained no time stipulation, the alleged notice of refusal was not proved, and the suit was instituted well beyond three years from the agreement. The plea of acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act also failed because the endorsements relied upon were not proved, and even on the plaintiff's case the action was delayed beyond the permissible period.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: A claim under Section 53-A requires proof of possession. The transaction was only of an undivided share in a property under lease, and a transferee from a co-owner of an undivided share cannot claim exclusive possession in derogation of the co-ownership framework under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. No credible evidence showed physical or symbolic possession, including attornment or receipt of rent after the agreement.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Final Conclusion: The trial court's dismissal of the suit was upheld, as the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement and endorsements, failed to overcome the bar of limitation, and failed to establish any right to protection under part performance.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for specific performance must be proved by reliable evidence of execution and genuineness, and the benefit of part performance is unavailable unless the transferee proves possession in a legally recognizable form.

---