This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31. 1995, made in A.S.No.110 of 1994, on the file of the Sub Court, Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 20.1.1990, made in O.S.No.539 of 1984, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the original suit O.S.No.539 of 1984.

3. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit praying for the relief of specific performance with regard to the suit property.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties belonged to the defendant. The defendant had executed a written agreement, dated 29. 1980, to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff and the said agreement had been registered. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant would sell his properties to the plaintiff for the sale consideration of Rs.9,000/-. The defendant having received the amount from the plaintiff on various occasions, had put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff had also paid the kist and the patta pass book had also been given to the plaintiff. The total advance amount paid by the plaintiff is Rs.3,450/-.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had undertaken to discharge a sum of Rs.2,000/- to Pukravari Society. The defendant had received a further sum of Rs.50/- on 29. 1980, the date of the agreement and he had agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.3,500/- on the date of the registration. It was agreed that the plaintiff should get the sale deed registered between 29. 1980 and 29. 1981. Since the defendant did not respond to the requests made by the plaintiff to register the sale deed, the plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendant, on 29. 1981, which the defendant had refused to receive.

6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,500/-to the defendant and to get the sale deed registered at his cost. The period of limitation for specific performance was 3 years from 29. 1981, under Article 54 of The Limitation Act. Thus, the suit is well within time. In such circumstances, the suit had been filed by the plaintiff praying for the relief of specific performance as stated therein.

7. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the claims made by the plaintiff had been denied. The defendant had stated that the agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff had been obtained under duress and coercion. In fact, the defendant had originally executed an agreement, dated 17. 1978. Since the plaintiff had not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the said agreement, the defendant had demanded, by a notice, dated 18. 1980, damages from the plaintiff, using his influence and power. The plaintiff had forcibly and fraudulently compelled the defendant, when he was ill, to execute the present agreement, dated 29. 1980. In spite of the defendant issuing a registered notice to the plaintiff, on 10. 1980, through his counsel and also a further notice having been issued by the defendant, on 20.11.1980, the plaintiff had remained silent.

8. The defendant had also denied receiving the advance amounts as alleged by the plaintiff. Further, the alleged sale price of Rs.9,000/-was also denied by the defendant. The defendant had further stated that the possession of the suit property had not been given to the plaintiff as claimed by him.

9. It has also been stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. It was further stated that the plaintiff had executed a release deed on stamped papers, expressing his inability to fulfill the conditions. As such, the defendant had continued to remain in possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff had also made an agreement on stamped papers, dated 212. 1980, stating th