The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale agreement dated 01.3.1980 was binding on the defendants and the possession was given to the plaintiffs in part performance of the agreement under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court also found that the suit for specific performance was not barred by limitation.

1. Defendants 2 to 9 in O.S. No. 552 of 1989 and the plaintiffs 2 to 8 in O.S. No. 552 of 1995 have filed S.A. Nos. 1086 of 2006 an 1087 of 2006 respectively against the common judgment and decree dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in A.S. No. 59 of 2003 and A.S. No. 58 of 2003 respectively wherein and by which the common judgment and decree dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Gingee, in O.S. Nos. 552 of 1989 and 552 of 1995 respectively, were confirmed.

2. Since the issue involved in these two appeals is inter-connected and as they arise out of common judgment and decree by the Courts below, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 552 of 1989 are the defendants in O.S. No. 552 of 1995. O.S. No. 552 of 1989 is filed for specific performance of the agreement dated 01.3.1980. O.S. No. 552 of 1995 is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, injunction and recovery of possession. The suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 552 of 1989 was decreed and the suit in O.S. No. 552 of 1995 for declaration and injunction was dismissed. The defendants in O.S. No. 552 of 1989 who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 552 of 1995 are the appellants before this Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their litigative status in O.S. No. 552 of 1989.

5. The suit properties originally belonged to one Sadagopan Naidu who had three sons, viz., Ramanujam, Thyagarajan and Purushothaman. After the death of Sadagopan, the properties devolved on the three sons each entitled to 1/3rd share. The 1/3rd fell to the share of Thyagarajan was purchased by Ramanujam, who was the first defendant. His wife is one Saroja, who is arrayed as the fifth defendant and the three sons, viz., Sekar, Rangabashyam and Gopi, are arrayed as defendants 2 to 4 respectively and another son Murthy died prior to the suit. The suit property is part of B Schedule property in a partition between the brothers, which is exhibited as B.2 dated 15.11.1969. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant Ramanujam for himself and on behalf of his minor children 2 to 4 agreed to sell to one Balakrishnan, who is the husband of the tenth plaintiff and father plaintiffs 1 to 9. As per the agreement, the sale amount was fixed at Rs.8000/- and sum of Rs.2000/- was paid on the date of agreement, viz., 01.3.1980. Even prior to the agreement being reduced in writing, a sum of Rs.6000/-was paid by Balakrishnan Gounder to the first defendant. As the entire sale consideration was paid even on the date of agreement, the sale was to be executed as and when demanded by the plaintiffs' father. It is stated that though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of agreement, the defendants were evading the same. The possession of the properties were also given to the plaintiffs' father on the date of the agreement. The plaintiffs' father Balakrishna Gounder died on 27.02.1996. His heirs continue to be in possession of the properties and dealing with the same but letting it out to third parties. In one such agreement dated 09.12.1998, the first defendant had also attested. On 28.02.1989, the first plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed and the defendant also agreed to do. As agreed, when they went to purchase the stamp papers before the Sub-Registrar's office, the value was said to be Rs.21,000/-for the suit properties and the required stamp papers were asked to be purchased. As the prices have gone up, the defendants refused to part with the amounts for a sum which was less than the guideline value. Therefore, the defendants refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific p