The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.108 of 2000 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Parchur against the appellant and respondents 2 to 8 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 31.3.1984. He pleaded that the suit schedule property of Ac.0.03 cents owned by Sri Kota Venkatarlu, father of the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, was given on lease in the year 1978 for establishing a work shop and that on 31.03.1984, Venkateswarlu executed an agreement of sale for sale of the property for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. On the same day, the entire consideration is said to have been paid. It was alleged that demand was made against Venkateswarlu for execution of sale deed but he did not execute the same till he died on 31.01.1994. Thereafter, a notice is said to have been issued to the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 on 29.06.2000 calling upon them to execute the sale deed and since they did not take any steps, the suit was filed. He expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

2. The appellant and the 3rd respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. It was stated that the property was owned by their mother by name Chandramathi, who purchased it under sale deed 09.09.1965 and after her death, the property devolved upon her three sons, two daughters and husband and each one got one-sixth share. They flatly denied the averment that Venkateswarlu executed the agreement of sale. According to them, the 1st respondent committed default in payment of rents and when repeated demands were made, he fabricated the agreement of sale with an oblique motive.

3. Respondents 4 to 8 herein, who figured as defendants 4 to 8, were added on the allegation that they obtained orders of attachment against the suit schedule property. They were set ex parte by the trial Court.

4. Through judgment, dated 24.11.2006, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The 1st respondent filed A.S.No.12 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. The appeal was allowed on 15.11.2007. Hence, this second appeal.

5. Heard Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The appellant made an endorsement in the grounds of appeal that respondents 2 to 8 are not necessary parties to the second appeal.

6. The 1st respondent was inducted into possession of the property as a lessee. To that extent, there is no controversy. However, he pleaded that the father of the appellant executed an agreement of sale on 31.03.1984 marked as Ex.A.10 and he filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. Two issues viz., whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of as prayed for, and whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for, were framed. On his behalf, the 1st respondent examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B.1 a sale deed, through which his mother purchased the property was filed. The suit was dismissed.

7. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration in A.S.No.12 of 2006 filed by the 1st respondent:

1. Whether Ex.A.10 is true, valid and binding on the legal heirs of Kota Venkateswarlu?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

3. Whether there are any grounds to set aside or modify the decree and judgment dated 24.11.2006 passed in O.S.No.108/2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur?

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, this Court is of the view that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:

(a) Whether it is not the obligation of a trial Court to examine the question of limitation, under