The legal principle established is that the relief of specific performance and adverse possession are mutually exclusive.

The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 and 2, on the basis of the Varthamana letter executed by them on 10.9.1974, allowed her to reside in suit property for a sum of Rs.1500/-. Thereafter, on receiving a sum of Rs.3000/-, the defendants 1 to 3 agreed to sell the property within a period of three years by executed a deed on 16.11.1978 and also handed over possession of the property to the plaintiff. While so, during the end of 1979, the defendants received a sum of Rs.1500/- agreeing to get the sale deed and that they had not claimed the sum of Rs.950/-. The defendants also agreed to receive only a sum of Rs.550/- further agreeing to return back the amount and also executed a blank pronote. It is stated that since the entire sale amount was given by the defendants for the above said transactions, they are liable to pay the amount and that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property for more than a statutory period and prescribed title by adverse possession. As such, according to the plaintiff, she is entitled to the benefits under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, she filed the suit for the relief of specific performance and for directing the defendants to execute the sale deed or alternative relief of declaration of title by way of prescription by adverse possession and also for the relief of permanent injunction not to alienate the suit property.

3. Resisting the suit, the defendants filed written statement stating that there is no cause of action for the suit. The defendants also took a defence that the suit is barred by limitation. It is stated that the suit property originally belonged to one Bahirathiammal, who settled the same in favour of her daughter first defendant, giving life estate. According to the defendants, since the plaintiff refused to receive repayment of loan obtained by them on the basis of Varthamana letter executed on 10.9.1974, she is bound to vacate the premises. Also, the defendants denied the execution of sale agreements dated 05.05.1976 and 16.11.1978 and also the pronote as averred by the plaintiff further stating that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property only for the loan amount borrowed by them. On these grounds, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Trial Court / learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, on consideration of the evidence adduced and the materials available thereon, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove Exs. A.1 and A.2 unregistered deeds of sale agreement, dismissed O.S. No. 1999 of 1996 holding as time barred by judgment dated 01.11.2004. On appeal, the First Appellate Court / learned Additional Sub-Judge, Salem, after careful consideration of the facts and law, dismissed the appeal confirming the finding of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the plaintiff has come up with this Appeal.

5. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:-

(i) Even assuming that Exs. A.1 and A.2 are unenforceable, having allowed the plaintiff to be in possession of the property as a usufructuory mortgagee, have not the defendants lost their right to redeem due to law of limitation coming into operation?

(ii) Whether the findings of the courts below that Exs. A.1 and A.2 are fabricated are opposed to legal evidence on record?

6. Heard Mr. P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

7. The case of the plaintiff is that the deceased first defendant and the second defendant Vittobai agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4000/- and the same was reduced to writing under Ex. A.1 dated 05.5.1976. The plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs.2300/- as advance and took possession of the property. On 16.11.1978, the