JUDGEMENT :

The unsuccessful defendant in O.S No.402 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondents herein filed O.S No.402 of 2006 for recovering a sum of Rs.43,500/- together with interest from the appellant herein. The respondents are none other than the legal heirs of one Marimuthu Gounder. He had sold the property covered by Ex.A1 in favour of the appellant Kuppusamy. Consideration was fixed at Rs.79,000/- Kuppusamy had received a sum of Rs.35,000/-. The said property had earlier been mortgaged with Ramapattinampudhur Agricultural Cooperative Society on 30.10.2001 for availing loan of Rs.38,400/-. The liability in respect of the said loan transaction had mounted to Rs. 43,500/-. The purchaser Kuppusamy was called upon to pay the said amount directly to the said cooperative society. Marimuthu Gounder passed away on 21.10.2003. Kuppusamy also did not clear the aforesaid loan liability. But in May 2006, the government had waived the agricultural loans. Thus, the encumbrance created on the said property got lifted. In other words, Kuppusamy had became the owner of the property even without paying the said amount of Rs.43,500/- to the society. Therefore, the legal heirs of Marimuthu Gounder the respondents herein sent Ex.A4 notice dated 10.07.2006 calling upon Kuppusamy to pay them the said amount. Kuppusamy vide Ex.A6 reply dated 13.07.2006 made it clear that he was not liable to make any payment to the respondents herein. Therefore, the said suit came to be instituted.

2. The appellant herein filed a detailed written statement stating that after purchasing the property vide Ex.A1 sale deed dated 21.10.2002, he had paid a sum of Rs.560/- to the account of Marimuthu Gounder with the said bank and he had already obtained Ex.B1 receipt dated 20.08.2003. He further stated that as the purchaser of the property it was he who had stepped into the sues of Marimuthu Gounder and entitled to the right of redemption. Therefore, the benefit of loan waiver announced by the Government would pass on to him. He would also contend that the sale deed having been executed on 21.10.2002, the institution of the suit on 31.07.20006 was patently barred by limitation. The defendant questioned the maintainability of the suit and sought its dismissal.

3. The second plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. The defendant himself examined as DW1 and one Ramasamy as DW.2 and marked Exs.B1 to B3. The learned Trial Munsif by judgment dated 18.04.2007, decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.43,500/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of plaint till the date of realization. Questioning the same, the defendant filed A.S No.30 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Palani. The first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 15.02.2010 dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, this Second Appeal has been filed. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

“1. Whether the claim of the plaintiff for balance sale consideration after lapse of 3 ½ years from the date of execution of Ex.A1 sale deed dated 21.10.2002 is sustainable as per the Limitation Act.

2. Whether the benefits of writing off loan, could be claimed by the legal heirs of seller/plaintiff when already suit schedule property had been sold by way of registered sale deed for part consideration ?”

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant strongly contended that the suit was barred by limitation. According to him, if at all the suit for recovery of the unpaid purchase money should have been instituted within three years from the date of execution of sale deed. In the case on hand, the suit was filed after three and half years after the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, t