Suit filed barred by period of limitation.

A. Ramamurthi, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants.

2. The first appellant after the filing of the appeal and, as such, appellants 4 to 13 were brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased.

3. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. The 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale for Rs. 6,740 on 110. 1974, agreeing to sell his land, well, electric service connection etc., to the plaintiff. On the date of agreement, Rs. 5,540 was paid. It was agreed that the plaintiff should repay the balance of Rs. 1,200 within a period of three months. Possession was also handed over on the date of agreement itself. On 112. 1975 the balance of Rs. 1,200 was paid by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant endorsed on the back of the document itself, undertaking to execute the sale deed whenever required. The plaintiff performed his part of the contract and is in possession of the property. On 1. 1976 by mutual agreement, the plaintiff got executed by the first defendant, sale of item 4 of the property mentioned in the schedule and the document was registered on 11. 1976. The remaining properties continued to be in the possession of the plaintiff. He demanded on 2. 1984 from the 1st defendant execution of the sale deed in respect of items 1 to 3. The 1st defendant had executed a sale deed on 12. 1984 in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of item No. 1. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to prepare the sale deed at his cost and register it. The 3rd defendant is impleaded as he has been falsely set up by defendants 1 and 2 as tenant of item No. 1. Hence, the suit for specific performance and injunction.

4. The defendants registered the suit and contended that the agreement dated 110. 1975 is not enforceable. The agreement is barred by time, after 1. 1976, the plaintiff never claimed right in the property. He had given up his right in items 1 to 3. Originally four items were agreed to be sold under the agreement. After execution of the sale relating to item 4, the plaintiff gave up items 1 to 3. The 1st defendant has sold to the 2nd defendant item No. 1. The agreement cannot be split up and, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial court framed 2 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked and D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. The trial court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has preferred A.S.No. 62 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Trivellore and the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and specific performance was ordered relating to items 1 to 3 of the properties and also granted the relief of permanent injunction. Aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present appeal.

6. The defendants-appellants raised the following substantial questions of law:

.(1) Whether the portion of the recitals in the agreement, quoted above, is enforceable in law as it contemplates that twice the advance amount has to be paid, by the first defendant?

.(2) Whether the agreement, Exs.A-1 and A-2 are specifically enforceable in law in view of the above condition incorporated in the agreement?

.(3) Is there ah enforceable contract at all that exists between the plaintiff and the defendants, as per the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

.(4) Is there any defence available for the defendants herein to put forward as per the provision of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act?

.(5) Is the law as contemplated under Section l7(l)(a) is distinguishable from the ratio in Haggard v. Scott (1830) 39 E.R. 113, especially in view of the fact as alleged that a long interval had taken place between the coming into existence of the suit contract and the tender of the consideration by the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed by the defendant which is an admi