The second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments rendered by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur in O.S.No.378 of 1992 and the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Punganur in A.S. No.12 of 2003.

The appellant is the defendant. The respondent herein filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 11.05.1980 (Ex.A.1) in respect of Ac.0.25 cents of land in Punganur Town. It was pleaded that the appellant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and that on the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid as advance. It was also mentioned that O.S.No.165 of 1976 was pending in relation to that land and that the parties agreed to conclude the transaction as soon as that suit is decided. Reference was made to a notice, dated 21.10.1988 (Ex.A.2) issued by the respondent calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed, reply notice, dated 03.11.1988 (Ex.A.4) issued by the appellant, denying the very execution of the agreement (Ex.A.1), a further notice dated 05.06.1991 (Ex.A.3) issued to the appellant and the reply, dated 16.06.1991 (Ex.A.5).

The appellant filed a written statement denying the very execution of the agreement of sale and the other contentions advanced by the respondent. She pleaded that there existed many transactions between her husband on the one hand and the father of the respondent on the other hand; and in the course of such transactions, Ex.A.1 appears to have been handed over by her husband to the father of the respondent. It was also stated that she entered into agreement of sale with certain other parties, in respect of the suit schedule property.

The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment dated 23.08.2002. The appellant filed A.S.No.12 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Punganur and the same was dismissed on 30.08.2005.

Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court committed errors on important questions of law, pertaining to limitation and proof of documents. He submits that when the respondent issued Ex.A.2 on 21.10.1988 in clear terms, requiring the appellant to execute the sale deed and the latter had flatly denied the execution of the agreement through her reply dated 03.11.1988 (Ex.A.4), the suit, if at all, ought to have been filed within three years from the date of receipt of Ex.A4. He submits that the suit was barred under Article 54 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act and though a specific plea was raised in this regard, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not take it into account.

Learned counsel submits that the only witness whom the respondent examined to prove Ex.A.1 was P.W.2 and that he was declared hostile, since he did not support the case of the respondent. He contends that nothing substantive was elicited from P.W.2 in the cross-examination. He submits that it was at the instance of the respondent, that the document was sent for the opinion of expert under Order 26 C.P.C. and though a report was submitted by the expert, stating that Ex.A.1 was not signed by the appellant, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have ignored such an important piece of evidence. Certain other contentions are also urged and he cited precedents in support of his contentions.

Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that though the respondent issued notice (Ex.A.2) in the year 1988 calling upon the appellant to execute sale deed, further steps could not be taken on account of the fact that possession of the suit schedule property was not delivered to the appellant till the year 1990. He contends that soon after the possession was delivered in compliance with the decree in O.S.No.165 of 1976, a notice in Ex.A.3 dated 05.06.1991 was issued and the suit was filed within three years thereafter.

Learned senior counsel further submits that the tri