The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim for specific performance can be barred by limitation, and the claimant must establish possession and enjoyment of the property in question.

T. Ravindran, J.

Second Appeal Nos.286 and 287 of 2015 are directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2014 passed in A.S.Nos.34 and 44 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruthani, modifying/reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 passed in O.S.Nos.121 of 2010 and 189 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthani respectively.

2. The appellants in Second Appeal No.286 of 2015 are the defendants in O.S.No.121 of 2010. The appellant in Second Appeal No.287 of 2015 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.189 of 2010. It is seen that the appellant in Second Appeal No.287 of 2015 is the fourth defendant in O.S.No.121 of 2010.

3. The case laid by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.121 of 2010 is that, he is the absolute owner and in possession of the plaint schedule properties having purchased the same by way of the registered sale deed dated 01.06.2009 and the properties purchased by him under the abovesaid sale deed are the ancestral properties of his vendors and accordingly the vendors had conveyed the same in his favour and the plaint schedule properties are in his possession and enjoyment and the defendants/appellants without any entitlement, attempted to interfere with his possession and enjoyment by creating fabricated documents and endeavoured to grab the same and hence according to the respondent/plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The appellants/defendants resisted the abovesaid suit of the respondent/plaintiff by contending that item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties is the ancestral property of the respondent/plaintiff's father S.Munirathnam Raju and his paternal uncle Venkamaraju and they had agreed to sell the said property to Subbalakshmamma @ Subbulakshmi, the appellant in S.A.No.287 of 2015 for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/- on 11.08.1995 and received the entire sale consideration on the same date to discharge their family debts and put her in the possession and enjoyment of the said property and they had executed the abovesaid sale letter for themselves and on behalf of their minor children including the respondent/plaintiff and agreed that they would execute a registered sale deed in her favour, whenever called by her and since then, it is only the appellant in S.A.No.287 of 2015, who is in the possession and enjoyment of the said property and despite the demand made by her to execute the registered sale deed in her favour several times, the respondent/plaintiff's father and his paternal uncle evaded the same on some pretext or the other and the paternal uncle died leaving behind his legal heirs and after his death also, requests had been made to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant in S.A.No.287 of 2015, however the same had been postponed for some reason or the other. On the other hand, the respondent had attempted to create some documents with regard to the said property and in this connection, the appellant had put forth an objection to the Registrar Office and despite the same, the document had come to be registered and thereafter the appellant in S.A.No.287 of 2015 issued a legal notice dated 22.06.2009 to all the parties including the respondent/plaintiff to execute the registered sale deed in her favour and to the same, a reply had been sent dated 02.07.2009 denying the execution of the sale letter and asserted that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the property covered under sale letter and the other properties and since the execution of sale letter dated 11.08.1995, it is only the appellant, who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the property comprised therein and thereby perfected her title, possession by way of adverse possession and hence according to the appellant in S.A.No.287 of 2015, the sale deed dated 01.06.2009 projected by the respondent/plaintiff had been created with a view to defeat her entitlement to obtain the sale deed in respe