The main legal point established in the judgment is the bar of limitation in the context of the suit for specific performance and the entitlement to protection under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.

1. The plaintiffs, Chellamuthu and Kaliammal, filed the suit in O.S.No.372 of 1984 seeking for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of two items of the suit property. The properties are situated in Salem District, Attur Taluk, Vepampoondi Village, with following survey numbers with corresponding extents:-

(i) R.S.No.130/1 – an extent of 56 cents;

(ii) R.S.No.130/3 – an extent of 20 cents.

1.1. After the death of Kaliammal, the legal representatives have been impleaded as plaintiffs 3 to 6. The plaintiffs claimed that the first item of the suit property is the ancestral property and the second item of the suit property is the self-acquired property of plaintiffs 2 and 3. Contending that the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property on 25.08.1984, suit for declaration and injunction has been filed.

1.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following contentions:-

(i) The plaintiffs 1 and 3 have executed an agreement to sell the suit property in respect of an extent of 26 cents in item No.1 and the entire extent in item No.2 for the sale consideration of Rs.1,500/-.

(ii) The first plaintiff received a sum of Rs.950/-and the third plaintiff received a sum of Rs.450/- as advances and on receipt of balance of Rs.100/-the plaintiffs have to execute the sale deed.

(iii) In pursuance of the sale agreement, dated 21.07.1978, possession was handed over to the defendants, therefore, there is no necessity for the defendants to interfere with the possession of the suit property. When the defendants themselves are in possession of the suit property, the question of trespass will not arise.

(iv) The defendants have spent a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards improvement of the suit property and they are cultivating the same.

1.3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether the first defendant is in possession of second item of the suit property and an extent of 26 cents in first item of the suit property, in pursuance of the sale agreement, is correct?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and injunction?

1.4. The trial court, after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, granted a decree for declaration, but declined the relief of injunction, with respect to the properties covered under the sale agreement is concerned.

1.5. Challenging these findings, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.54 of 1997 by the plaintiffs. The first appellate court modified the decree and judgment of the trial court to the extent to which it was appealed against and the appeal was allowed. The first appellate court gave a finding that the finding of the trial court with regard to possession based on sale agreement is incorrect. The first appellate court found fault with the trial court on the reasoning that the burden of proof has been wrongly placed on the defendants. As against this finding, the defendants have filed the second appeal.

1.6. The following substantial questions of law have been framed:-

"1. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is correct and justified in granting the relief of injunction against the transferee's interest protected under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act?

2. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is correct and justified in holding that the first appellant is not in possession of the suit properties when admittedly under Ex.B-6 possession was handed over on the date of its execution?"

2. The suit in O.S.No.425 of 1988 was filed by the plaintiff-Kondi seeking the relief of specific performance based upon the sale agreement dated 21.11.1978.

2.1. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following contentions:-

(i) The defendants never agreed to sell the suit property and they did not execute any sale agreement.

(ii) The defendants did not receive any money towards the sale consideration.

(iii) The possession of the suit property was