1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff in the suit as against the judgement and decree dated 4.2.2002 passed by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, in O.S.No.8143 of 1997, which was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:

(i) The appellant herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.8143 of 1997 seeking specific performance, with the following reliefs:

"to pass a judgement and decree for a specific performance

1. Directing the 1st defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee/s in respect of the scheduled mentioned property morefully described in the schedule annexed with the plaint after complying with all the statutory requirements on the part of the 1st defendant.

2. For permanent injunction restraining the defendant or his servant/s or agent/s or any other person/s claiming through or under him from in any manner dealing with the schedule mentioned property other than the plaintiff.

3. To pay the cost of the suit."

(extracted as such)

on the main ground that there emerged the suit agreement to sell Ex.A1 dated 26.10.1990 between the plaintiff and Velayutham/D1-the Power of Attorney of D2 in respect of the suit property; an advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-out of the total sale consideration of 9,50,000/- was paid under the said agreement to sell by the plaintiff to D1 and the time stipulated for performance of contract, was five months.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, even though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, D1 was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

Accordingly the plaintiff would pray for ordering specific performance of the agreement to sell.

(iii) Per contra, D1 filed the written statement, which was adopted by D2 by filing memo. The gist and kernel of the written statement was that the suit was barred by limitation and the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Accordingly, the defendants would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

(iv) Whereupon, the trial Court framed the issues.

(v) During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1, however, no document was marked on his side.

(vi) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree of the trial Court, this appeal has been focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant herein/plaintiff, by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his arguements which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) The said Velayutham/D1 had to face a criminal case; at that time he filed an application for anticipatory bail and in that connection he filed a rejoinder-Ex.A4, in which he referred to this suit agreement to sell and that itself would indicate and exemplify that the suit agreement was acknowledged by him to be a valid and subsisting one. Hence, the filing of the suit during the year 1997 cannot be termed as one barred by limitation.

(ii) The plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the lower Court simply rejected his prayer for specific performance.

(iii) The conduct of Velayutham/D1/D.W.1 was not taken into consideration, as he was in the habit of indulging in such sort of entering into agreements to sell and thereafter resiling from the same.

Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court and for decreeing the suit for specific performance.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent, who would p