Question of title is immaterial.

1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 639 of 1980, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, is the appellant. Subsequent to the filing of Second Appeal, the sole appellant died and his legal representative has been brought on record as additional 2nd appellant. The sole respondent in the Second Appeal is the 1st defendant in the suit. She also died and her legal representatives have also been brought on record as additional respondents 2 to 5.

2. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the sole respondent, the 1st defendant in the suit. She sold the property to one Kannappa Mudaliar on 22.11.1967 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. On 24.11.1967 Kannappa Mudaliar executed a reconveyance deed agreeing to reconvey the property for Rs. 13,300/- within a period of six years. But Kannappa Mudaliar did not reconvey the property as agreed, and therefore, the 1st defendant filed a suit as O.S. No. 481 of 1973, on the file of Subordinate Judges Court, Cuddalore, for specific performance of the reconveyance agreement. The suit was decreed on 25.7.1975. Pending suit, 1st defendant entered into another agreement with the deceased plaintiff herein, as evidenced by Ex.A-1 dated 5.10.1974. The 1st defendant agreed to convey the plaint property for a total consideration of Rs. 25,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid in cash as advance on the date of agreement. As per the agreement, the balance Rs. 5000/- has to be paid at the time, when the sale deed is to be executed. In the agreement, it is also stated about the pendency of litigation between the 1st defendant and Kannappa Mudaliar. It is stated therein, that the sale deed will be executed within a period of two months after the decree is obtained. From out of Rs. 20,000/- received as advance, the amount payable under the reconveyance agreement was deposited by the 1st defendant in Court. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has also received Rs. 5,000/-, the balance sale consideration, but since subsequently the 1st defendant disputed the same, the plaintiff to prove his bona fides deposited that amount.’

3. Against the decree in O.S. No. 481 of 1973, Kannappa Mudaliar filed an appeal as A.S. No. 796 of 1975, on the file of this Court. After filing the appeal, Kannappa Mudaliar also obtained an order of stay of all further proceedings in the case. Kannappa Mudaliar died pending appeal, and present defendants 2 to 5 were also impleaded in that case. The appeal was dismissed on 23.6.1980. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff issued a notice asking the 1st defendant to execute a sale deed, as evidenced by Ex.A-1. Her contention was that the agreement is not in force, since the plaintiff ought to have demanded within two months from the date of original decree i.e. , on 25.7.1975. Since the 1st defendant did not execute a sale deed as demanded, the present suit was filed for specific performance, impleading not only the 1st defendant, who is the executant of Ex.A-1 agreement, but also defendants 2 to 5, the legal heirs of Kannappa Mudaliar. A decree was also sought against them that they must also be compelled to join in executing the sale deed, in view of the decree obtained against Kannappa Mudaliar.

4. Defendants 2 to 5 did not contest the suit, and they remained ex parte. 1st Defendant alone contested the suit and her only contention was that the suit is barred by limitation. According to her, the suit ought to have been filed within two months from the date of original decree and the suit having been filed only in 1980 is barred by limitation.

5. On the above pleadings, the trial Court took oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation and the intention of the parties, while executing Ex.A-1 agreement was to get the sale deed, after the final adjudication of the rights, i.e. , including the decision in appeal. It was also found that the plaintiff has done all acts, which are expected to be done as p