( 1 ) THE present Second Appeal has been placed before this Full Bench under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, since the learned single Judge, before whom the appeal was placed for hearing, has doubted the correctness of the law laid down by the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of A. Kareem Baig v. Dr. Mohammad Khizar Hussain ILR (1988) Kar 631, Guru Rao v. Subba Rao ILR (1992) Kar 429 and Azmattulla Kahn v. Thankamma Mathews ILR (1994) Kar 1665. In the said decisions, it has been held that once the remedy by way of suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of an immovable property becomes barred by limitation as provided under the Limitation Act, then, even the statutory right of the transferee, as given under S. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short, "the Act"), to defend the possession over the property taken or continued under the said contract as granted is lost, destroyed or gets extinguished. FACTS

( 2 ) THIS is defendants' second appeal. The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit being O. S. No. 195/84 in the Court of Munsiff, Nanjangud, seeking a declaration of ownership over the suit property with consequential relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit property is a wet agricultural land ad measuring 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy. No. 11/2 of Sirimally village, Hullahalli Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore Dist.

( 3 ) THE defendants are the nephews of the plaintiff. Admittedly, about 20 years prior to the filing of the suit, consequent to a family partition, the suit land had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, during the year 1975, the original defendant, namely the father of the appellants, took possession of the suit land by trespassing thereupon and since despite repeated requests for handing over of possession went in vain, the suit in question came to be filed seeking the reliefs as noticed above. The defence taken in the written statement by the defendant was that the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the defendant under a registered deed of mortgage/hypothecation dt. 9-4-1973 by delivery of possession of the suit land to the defendant. According to the defendant, subsequently, on 29-12-1973 the contesting parties entered into a written agreement to sell whereunder the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit land to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 7,025/- and part payment was made by adjustment of debt of Rs. 2,000/- and cash payment of Rs. 500/ -. According to the defendant, it was also agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 4,525/- was to be paid at the time of registration. The defendant further pleaded that the said remaining amount was also paid on 6-6-1974. The defendant claimed that in view of these facts, he is entitled to defend his possession over the suit property in view of the statutory provisions contained in S. 53a of the Act being a transferee having performed his part of the contract.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, accepted the defendant's case and dismissed the suit under its judgment and decree dt. 24-10-1987. However, the plaintiff questioned the correctness of said judgment and decree by filing appeal in R. A. No. 53/87 before the Civil Judge, Nanjangud, and succeeded therein. The appellate order which is impugned in this second appeal is dated 21-10-1993.

( 5 ) THE Appellate Court has decreed the plaintiff's suit in terms of the reliefs sought for in the plaint. Though the Court below has accepted the case of the defendant regarding agreement to sell and part performance of the said contract but according to it, since the sale deed which ought to have been executed on 5-6-1976 but had not been executed and the defendant had failed to file a suit for a specific performance of the contract seeking execution of the sale deed as a measure of specific performance within the period of limitation, therefore, he had lost his right to defend hi