JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.2011 passed by the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court) in A.S.No.90 of 2008.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.07.2008 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court) in O.S.No.1413 of 2001.

3. The plaintiff (since deceased), whose interest was represented by second to fifth plaintiffs before the Trial Court and the appellants herein had originally filed in O.S.No.1413 of 2001 on 20.11.1998 for the following reliefs before the Trial Court:-

“ i. for specific performance of the agreement dated 22.11.1995 and directing the defendant to execute the sale-deed on receipt of the remaining sale consideration for a sum of Rs.14,800/- (fourteen thousand eight hundred rupees only) out of the total consideration agreed by the defendant (seller) fixing the sale-price for a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- (two lakhs and fifteen thousand rupees only) free from all encumbrances within a date to be specified by this Court and in case the defendant commit default to get sale deed executed and registered by this court in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant at the cost of the defendant herein;

ii. directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit;

iii. pass such other suitable reliefs like return the entire advances with 36% annual interest (compound) from the period of receipt of the advance(s) till the same are returned to the plaintiff in case if she desires.”

4. The suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff (Ponnammal) on 20.11.1998. It was just two days before the expiry of the lapses of period of three years limitation on payment of a token Court Fee of Rs.1.

5. Subsequently, the Court Fee was paid over a period of time and finally the suit was taken on file on 07.12.2001, though no supporting application for extension of time under Section 149 of CPC was filed by the deceased plaintiff before the Trial Court. The Trial Court kept extending the time to pay the Court Fee by the deceased plaintiff. Ultimately, the suit was numbered on 07.12.2001.

6. Before the Trial Court, the first respondent/sole defendant (since deceased, whose interest is represented by the second to fifth respondents in this Second Appeal) resisted the above suit denying the execution of Ex.A3 Sale Agreement dated 22.11.1995 and receipt of the sale consideration pursuant to the said aforesaid Ex.A3 Sale Agreement.

7. Eventually, the suit was dismissed by the Trial court on the ground that the suit was time barred. It has also concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate that either the execution of Ex.A3 Sale Agreement dated 22.11.1995 and that an earlier suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff for a permanent injunction in O.S.No.1970 of 1997 which was precluded the deceased plaintiff from filing the subsequent suit for specific performance having regard to Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, appellants herein the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed A.S.No.90 of 2008 before the First Appellate Court.

9. The First Appellate Court by its impugned judgment and decree while upholding the validity and execution of Ex.A3 Sale Agreement dated 22.11.1995 has however declined to order refund of the sale consideration allegedly paid by the deceased plaintiff to the deceased defendant and thus dismissed the appeal.

10. This case was not admitted when it was listed for admission. As was the practice, notice of admission was ordered on the respondent/defendant. Thus, no question of law has been framed by this Court. Both the counsel for the appellant