S.S. Sundar, J.

1. Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in A.S. No. 93 of 2009, dated 30.06.2011, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 114 of 2007, dated 16.02.2009, passed by the learned District Munsif, Melur, this Second Appeal has been filed.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 114 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Melur. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 114 of 2007 for specific performance in respect of a Sale Agreement, dated 19.11.2000 and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property.

3. Brief facts as set out in the plaint are as follows:-

The suit property belonged to the respondent/defendant and the suit property is measuring an extent of 84 cents in R.S. No. 95/5 in Maruthur Village, Melur Taluk. The respondent purchased the suit property under the sale deed, dated 29.08.1986. The respondent approached the appellant and offered to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 57,120/- and a written sale agreement was entered into on 19.11.2000 and the payment of Rs. 50,000/- paid by the appellant to the respondent was acknowledged. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the respondent had to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration within a period of three months from the date of the agreement.

4. It was the case of the appellant that since she had paid the major portion of the sale price i.e. Rs. 50,000/- out of Rs. 57,120/- the respondent had handed over the possession of the suit property to the appellant. The appellant also is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in part performance of the sale agreement and hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefits of Section 53(A) of Transfer of Property Act. As the appellant is also doing personal cultivation, the appellant is always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and to complete the transaction as per the sale agreement dated 19.11.2000. Since the respondent represented that he had applied for Patta and that he would execute the sale deed, after getting Patta, the respondent approached the appellant once again paid a further advance of Rs. 4,000 to meet out the expenses for getting Patta. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was paid to the respondent on 05.02.2002. However, the respondent had obtained Patta only in the month of November 2006 and informed to the appellant only after a delay of four months thereafter. Thus, the respondent was evading the performance of contract without any reasonable cause. Hence, the appellant issued a Lawyer notice by way of Telegram on 17.04.2007 to call upon the respondent to execute the sale deed, after receipt of a sum of Rs. 3,120/- which alone is the balance of sale consideration.

5. Strangely, in the cause of action paragraph, the appellant has not even referred to the dates and events that would save the suit from limitation. The suit was contested by the respondent denying the averments that were made in the plaint, apart from contending that the suit filed for specific performance is not maintainable, by raising various grounds. The trial Court framed necessary issues including the issue relating to limitation. After holding against the appellant, on all issues the trial Court has found that the suit is barred by limitation, on the admitted facts. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 93 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. With regard to the issue whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for injunction, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court consistently rejected the claim o