Mr. T. Mathivanan, J.

This memorandum of Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 and made in the appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2013 and made in the suit in O.S.No.629 of 2008 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.629 of 2008 whereas the respondent is the plaintiff.

3. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the appellants may herein after be referred to as the defendants and the respondents be referred as the plaintiffs wherever the context so require.

4. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.629 of 2008 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai as against the defendants and thereby sought the relief of specific performance of contract of sale directing the defendants to execute and register a sale deed in his favour in respect of the properties morefully described in the plaint schedule and also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering, transferring or in any manner deal with the suit property and also for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property. This suit was resisted by the appellants.

5. On appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial judge had decreed the suit with costs declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale, directing the defendants 1 and 2 to receive the deposited amount towards the balance of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of three months, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed through the process of Court. The Trial Court had also found that the plaintiff is also entitled for the possession of the suit property from the second defendant.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the suit dated 04.06.2013, the appellants/defendants had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2014 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.28 of 2014. This appeal was dismissed on 12.09.2014 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendants have therefore stand before this Court with this second appeal.

7. Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned counsel for M/s. Uma for the appellants/ defendants and Mr. P.L. Narayanan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

8. This second appeal came to be admitted on the following four substantial questions of law:-

''1. Whether the courts below are right in holding that as per Exhibit A-2 the Respondent is entitled to get the relief of Specific Performance when the Respondent has not complied with the requirement of Section 2(b) and (e) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?

2. Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the veracity of Exhibit B-3 to be proved by the 1st Appellant when the Respondent disputed his signature in Exhibit B-3 ?

3. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit and directing the Appellants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the Respondent in the absence of a suit prayer by the Respondent seeking for possession of the suit schedule property in terms of Sections 5 and 6 of Specific Relief Act ?

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

9. Before we go into the merits of the case, this Court would like to place it on record that the present suit for specific performance of contract of sale was decreed by the trial court as prayed for by the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed after confirming