Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 07.11.2014, passed in A.S.No.47 of 2012, on the file of the V Additional District Court, Madurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 13.08.2012, passed in O.S.No.1005 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

“(1) When the vendor had agreed, after the receipt of the entire sale consideration from the purchaser, and agreed to execute the sale deed as and when the purchaser demanded it, whether, the suit for specific performance filed within three years from the date of refusal to execute the sale sale deed is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

(2) When the plaintiff had agreed to take a lesser extent of the land than one stipulated under the Original Agreement of Sale, whether the purchaser is not entitled to the benefits of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act?

(3) When the earlier suit is for permanent injunction, for a different relief, and when the later suit is for specific performance on a different cause of action, whether the later suit filed for specific performance is hit under the bar in Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(4) When the subsequent purchaser himself had admitted that he knew the existence of the contract of sale, between his vendor and the agreement holder, and when, the purchaser adopted several tactics to deprive the agreement holder from getting the benefit of the sale is he is not disentitled to get the suit for specific performance filed by the agreement holder, on any ground, and by his conduct.

(5) When the vendor admittedly had not returned the advance amount after adjusting the sale consideration for the part of the sale transaction, whether, a decree of lower Appellate Court, dismissing the suit without directing the refund of the advance amount, as alternative relief is illegal.”

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

5. Suffice to state that the plaintiff has laid the suit against the defendants seeking the relief of specific performance for enforcing the sale agreement, dated 28.01.2001. It is found that the property comprised in the sale agreement – Ex.A1 belonged to Kadar Meera alias Muthalif and based on the power of attorney deed executed by him in favour of one A.K.Annadurai, it is seen that Ex.A1 – sale agreement had been entered into by the said A.K.Annaduai as the power of attorney agent of Kadar Meera alias Muthalif with the plaintiff in respect of the property comprised therein. It is not in dispute that A.K.Annadurai had the competency to enter into the sale agreement marked as Ex.A1 with the plaintiff and thus, it is found that the power of attorney agent has validly entered into the abovesaid sale agreement with the plaintiff and on a perusal of the terms contained in Ex.A1 – sale agreement, it is evident that the abovesaid sale agreement has been entered into between the parties concerned in respect of the property situated in Tallakulam Village, comprised in R.S.Nos.173/11 and 174/1B2, an extent of 1 Acre and 11 Cents, on the southern side, out of the total extent of 1 Acre 21 Cents. Furthermore, it is also found that the parties thereto had agreed to that the sale consideration should be fixed at Rs.2,20,000/- per Cent and it is noted that on the date of the sale agreement – Ex.A1, the plaintiff had tendered a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the power agent and furthermore, the sale agreement recites that the plaintiff should pay the balance sale consideration within a period of three months and on the plaintiff completing the above part of the terms of the contract, the parties further agreed to that the