1. The Appellant/Defendant (since deceased) has preferred this second appeal before this Court as against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1993 in A.S.No.66 of 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu.

2. The First Appellate Court viz., the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu, in the judgment and decree in A.S.No.66 of 1993, has among other things, observed that the suit is not barred by limitation and further held that the respondent/plaintiff (since deceased) is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and consequently, dismissed the appeal without costs and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court namely the learned Sub Judge, Poonamallee, in O.S.No.155 of 1986 dated 27.04.1993.

3. Before the trial Court, two issues have been framed for adjudication in the main case. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.16 have been marked.

4. The trial Court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a consequent conclusion holding that the Appellant/defendant is to receive a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only) being the balance sale consideration, along with the interest if any and execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff at the expenses of the respondent/plaintiff and also three months time has been granted to execute the sale deed, failing which the respondent/plaintiff is permitted to get the sale deed registered in his favour through the Court and decreed the suit without costs.

5. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit, the Appellant/defendant has preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.66 of 1993 on the file of the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu, who confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in the main suit and thereby dismissed the appeal.

6. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.66 of 1993, the Appellant/defendant (since deceased) has preferred this second appeal before this Court as an aggrieved person.

7. During the pendency of this second appeal, both the Appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff have expired and therefore, their respective legal heirs have been impleaded as the Appellants and the respondents respectively.

8. At the time of admitting this second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

"1) Whether both the Courts below failed to note that the agreement to sell the property had been revoked by both parties under Ex.B5 and B6 and B7, B8 and B15?

2) Whether both the Courts below failed to note that under Ex.B6 the Appellant had refused to perform her part of the contract and hence the suit ought to have been filed within 3 years from Ex.B6 (21.2.1980) or within 3 years after expiry of one month from 21.02.1980?

3) Whether both Courts below failed to note that the suit is barred by limitation?

4) Whether both Courts below failed to note that the respondent was not willing and ready to perform his part of the contract?

5) Whether both the Courts below erred in believing Ex.A2 and A3 even though the respondent in his evidence admitted as follows:

6) Whether both Courts below erred in decreeing the suit, even though compensation in money is an adequate relief under Section 14(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act?

7) Whether both Courts below failed to consider the mandatory provision under Section 14(1)(a) and Section 20(1) of Specific Relief Act?"

9. The contentions, discussions and findings on Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 to 5:

The learned Counsel for the Appellants/defendants submits that both the Courts below have rendered a judgment as against law, evidence and probabilities of the case and further, the respondent/plaintiff (since deceased) ha