JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No. 1 of 2011 dated 23.12.2014 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.125 of 2003 dated 18.01.2006 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.)

1. The legal representatives of the deceased defendant in O.S.No.125 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, are the appellants herein.

2. O.S.No. 125 of 2003 had been filed by the plaintiff K.Ganesan against the defendant S.Narayanaswamy, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 18.11.1992 and in default for the Court to execute the sale deed and for a further direction against the defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties free from any obstruction and for costs of the suit.

3. By Judgment dated 18.01.2006, the suit was decreed. The defendant then filed A.S.No. 1 of 2011 before the II Additional District Court, Chidambaram. Pending the Appeal, he died and his legal representatives, namely, his widow and daughter were brought on record. By Judgment dated 23.12.2014, the appeal was dismissed and the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No. 125 of 2003 was confirmed.

4. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the legal representatives of the defendant then filed the present Second Appeal.

5. The Second Appeal had been admitted on 25.06.2015 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“a. Whether the Courts below erred in law in not applying the first limb of the Article 54 of the Limitation Act when Ex.A-1 stipulates six months time for performance of contract?;

b. When the plaintiff had filed another suit for specific performance against the defendant in the year 1993, whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract for more than a decade in the absence of any demand in writing?;

c. Whether the findings of the Courts below with regard to limitation and readiness and willingness are perverse?.”

O.S.No.125 of 2003 (Sub Court, Chidambaram):

6. The plaintiff K.Ganesan claimed that the defendant S.Narayanaswamy had agreed on 18.11.1992 to sell the suit properties situated at C.Kothangudi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, measuring 1.92 acres for a total consideration of Rs.2,92,000/-. The agreement was also registered. An advance of Rs.10,000/- was paid. The balance was to be paid within a period of six months and should be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The registration copy of the agreement of sale was filed along with the plaint. It was also stated that at the time of the agreement of sale, the defendant had represented that he has absolute title to the suit properties by virtue of an agreement of sale in his favour dated 10.11.1986 which was between himself and the then owners of the suit properties, namely, Natarajan and his younger brother, minor Sivakumar. It was further claimed that the defendant was to get the sale deed executed in his favour by them within a period of six months after the said minor Sivakumar attained the age of majority. It was stated that subsequently, the time fixed in the suit agreement was extended. The defendant had stated that there was a delay in getting the sale deed executed in his favour by Natarajan and Sivakumar and stated that it would take some more time. It was also stated that incidentally on the same day, namely, 18.11.1992, the defendant had also entered into another registered agreement of sale with the plaintiff with respect to other properties measuring 3.35½ acres for a consideration of Rs.5,10,000/-. It was also stated that with respect to that agreement, the plaintiff herein had filed O.S.No. 106 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram and after contest, the suit was decreed. It was further stated that the defendant herein had given evidence in that suit admitting existence of