Dear Sir,

Whether the opponent was put into legal possession of the said land, if not you will win. Otherwise you have to file suit for recovery of possession. 

The second suit comes under which section of specific relief act. 2.is second also barred by limitation act. 
This statement is also correct and file application under order 7 rule 11 cpc

It is necessary to peruse the suit papers to advice 

if no threats have been allegedly given after 2017 claim is barred by limitation 

You should file suit to recover possession as you are absolute owner of property and he has encroached on your property 

How did the opponent get possession of property? 

If he has taken possession on the basis of sale agreement then his title to the property may not be disputed.

However if you confirm that father has no handed over possession after entering into the sale agreement, you can seek for recovery of possession because he has illegally occupied the same. 

More details are required for rendering more opinion on this, instead you may conduct the suit properly as per due process of law with the support of documentary evidences in your support.

As far as the second case is concerned you can file a petition to reject the plaint under order VII rule 11 for various reasons namely barred by limitation, cause of action etc., also you may see if it is affected  by the act of res judicata

In the second suit he is seeking injunction to restrain you from interfering in his possession, hence you can make a counter claim for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to demolish the structure built illegally in the vacant site 

You can also file application for rejection of the subsequent suit here court 

s.53A of transfer of property act

the 2nd suit is not barred as the cause of action pleaded is your alleged interference in his alleged possession

since the person is claiming that he is in possession basis the unregistered agreement for sale, any action sought to be initiated by you against him, for eg. recovering possession, would not be allowed, considering 53A of TOPA

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 Section 53A - Part performance

Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty,

and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract,

and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract,

then, notwithstanding that 2[***] where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefore by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.]

Suit for specific performance can be filed on basis of un registered agreement t for sale 

s.53A uses the expression - "where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefore by the law for the time being in force"

'the law for the time being in force' is referable to the registration act 

the transfer is not completed since the final sale deed/conveyance is not registered u/s 17(1)(b)

so in case of an agreement to transfer coupled with delivery of possession, the buyer can get protection under 53A

However you can take benefit u/s 17(1)(A) which require an agreement to transfer to be compulsorily registered in order to claim benefit under s.53A

the buyer lost in the 1st suit seeking specific performance of contract as the Court held that the same was barred by limitation since the agreement is of 2012 and suit was filed in 2017

this means that the buyer has lost the remedy to seek specific performance of contract. The right to seek specific performance is there but the remedy is lost due to lapse of time

as the 1st suit was rejected under 7/11, that operates as a decree

so the 2nd suit by the buyer would be barred by res judicata u/s 11 of cpc [this is my prima facie view]

since 17[1][A] disentitles the buyer from the benefit under 53A TOPA on account of the contract being unregistered, in my prima facie view you can file a suit/counter claim for recovering possession [for which the limitation period is 12 years and also such suit would entail payment of court fees on the market value of the property]

File detailed reply denying allegations made 

draw attention of court to fact that suit for specific performance was dismissed 

The suit for specific performance of contract is maintainable if he has possession on the basis of unregistered sale agreement also 

The court may direct him to the stamp duty penalty if the case is decided in his favour.

If the suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed then the suit for permanent injunction to not interfere with his possession also will not be maintainable, however you can file a counter claim for recovery of possession since he's having illegal possession.

Dear Client,
From the above information, it would appear that the second suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is filed by the reverse party.There, it is seen that declaration of legal character or right can be brought within by a person. Again, they application for permanent injunction would squarely fall within Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. Their suit may be, however barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which gives three years for bringing a suit for declaration from the date of accrual of the right to sue. The opponent party, in their plaint,have themselves admitted that the alleged acts of interference startedfrom 14th April 2017. Thus, the limitation period to bring such a suit would have already expired on 14th April 2020. Again, the agreement of 2012, though unregistered, holds no great evidentiary value since it is neither registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 nor does it confer any title over it. Since the firstsuit is already dismissed by the HighCourt holding it barred by limitation, itmay fairly be said that the second suit was an indirect attempt to achieve relief, in that you would argue to beres judicata under Section 11 of CPC. It is better to present an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the second suit for rejecting the plaint on the grounds of limitation and failure to disclose a valid cause of action.

Hope you find this answer helpful in resolving the issue.

i would like to revise my reply to your query

the 2nd suit would not be hit by res judicata since the cause of action in that suit is materially different from the cause of action in the 1st suit

the relief claimed in the 1st suit was for specific performance of contract by registering a conveyance in favour of the buyer whereas the relief claimed in 2nd suit is for protection of possession. So the causes of action in both the suits are different and res judicata will not apply

the 2nd suit would also not be barred by limitation since the alleged interference in possession of the buyer would be within the limitation period

the owner or his heir cannot maintain a suit to seek recovery of possession from the buyer who was put in possession under an unregistered agreement for sale 

- Since, the said specific performance suit is dismissed for the said property , then on the same cause of action another suit is not maintainable , as the suit property is the same 

- Further, in the absence of a registered agreement , no suit is maintainable even the specific performance suit was also not maintainable. 

- Further, as per the Supreme Court judgement in the matter of Anathula Sudhakar versus P. Buchi Reddy , A simple suit for bare injunction is not maintainable.

- Further, if he is in possession of the property then he cannot be declared as owner in the absence of a registered agreement , and his status is like a trespasser. 

- You can file a complaint against him for the offence of trespassing . 

Registration is necessary for proving the said agreement but without registration also the agreement can be relied upon in evidence before court but you can apply for impounding of the same 

1. No title of immoveable property can be transferred based on agreement to sell or any such unregistered document as per the Judgement passed by the Apex Court in the year 2009 in the case of Suraj Lamps & Ors .....Vs......The State of Haryana.

2. In your case the agreement is of the year 2012 for which it is not valid at all.

3. You should draw the attention of the Courts to the above Judgement in all the cases filed by him

1. You should term him as the trespasser  in to your land and thereafter file a petition for recovery of possession of the said land with police help.

1. A Sale Deed is required to be registered for conveying the title of the land in his name.

2. Agreement to sell, be it registered or unregistered, does not convey title of the property as per the Apex Court Judgement mentioned in my earlier post.

1. Contest the case conveniently filed by him fittingly.

2. You shall have to file a case for his dispossession.