This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 210. 1994 made in O.S.No.347 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. The appellants herein were defendants 1, 2 and 7 in the suit before the trial court.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent / plaintiff, seeking a decree against the appellants and others, directing them to pay specific amounts with interest and costs, accordingly, the decree was passed by the trial court against the first appellant / D1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,76,585/- along with 15% interest for the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The second appellant / D2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,76,585/-along with 15% interest for the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The third appellant / D7 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.88,293/-with 15% interest for the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with cost. Further, the appellants herein were directed to pay Rs.6,000/-, which was given by the respondent for one Mumtaj Begum and one Hazra Bibi with interest and costs.

3. According to the respondent / plaintiff, he entered into an agreement, Ex.A.1, dated 11.03.1987 with the appellants and seven others to purchase the property described in the plaint schedule, for a sale consideration of Rs.7,85,000/-. On the date of agreement, Tmt.Mumtaj Begum and Tmt.Hajaran Beevi were not present to sign the agreement, however, Rs.2,71,000/- was received by the defendants therein as advance and part of the sale consideration.

4. According to the respondent / plaintiff, the appellants and others were evading the performance of their part of the contract. Hence, he issued a legal notice, dated 011. 1989, marked as Ex.A.2. The appellants 1 and 2 sent a reply notice, dated 012. 1989 marked as Ex.A.5, wherein the appellants 1 and 2 have disputed the claim of the respondent.

5. Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs. Muthumani Doraisami, for the appellants contended that even as per the pleadings, the trial court should have decided that the suit claim was barred by limitation, for which, he drew the attention of this Court to Section 3 of The Limitation Act, 1963. As per Section 3(1) of The Limitation Act, 1963, subject to the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, though limitation has not been set up as a defence by the other side.

6. According to the respondent, the agreement for sale, Ex.A.1 was entered into between the respondent, appellants and others on 11.03.1987. The respondent has also admitted that as per Ex.A.1, agreement, time limit fixed for performance of contract was six months from the date of the agreement and therefore, as per the agreement, it could have been performed on or before 10.09.1987. Further, there is a forfeiture clause stating that if the respondent fail to perform his part of the contract, he will loose the advance amount paid and similarly, if the appellants and others fail to perform their part of contract, the respondent could have the right of specific performance of the contract, through court of law and also entitled to claim damages and costs.

7. The respondent herein, who was examined as P.W.1 has admitted that he had not filed any suit for specific performance of the contract, but filed this suit only for return of the advance amount with interest.

8. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is only a suit on money claim. As per Article 47, the limitation prescribed for money claim is only three years. In case of specific performance of a contract, the limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance of the contract or if no such date is fixed, then the date of refusal for the performance of the contract has to be considered.

9. In the instant case, as per Ex.A.1, agreement for sale, time limit has been fixed, as six months from the date of agreement and therefore, the