The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit for specific performance, the agreement of the parties regarding the essence of time and the proof of endorsements play a crucial role in determining the entitlement to the relief of specific performance.

A. SELVAM, J.

The judgment and decree dated 16.7.2008 passed in Appeal Suit No. 258 of 2004 by the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul are now under challenge.

2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.165 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul, for the reliefs of specific performance, damages and also for recovery of money with interest, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is the absolute property of the first defendant. The second and third defendants are the daughters of the first defendant. The first defendant has agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- and received Rs. 3,000/- by way of advance and the terms of agreement have been reduced into writing on 22.11.1990 and on the basis of the instruction given by the first defendant, the defendants 2 & 3 have also been included in the suit sale agreement. It is agreed by the defendants 1 to 3 that they should receive balance of sale amount and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs within six months. The defendants 1 to 3 have also agreed to give possession of the suit property without any encumbrance. The first defendant has informed that the suit property is in possession of her husband, mother-in-law and the second wife of her husband and their son at the time of execution of sale agreement. Since possession of the suit property has to be recovered, the first defendant has demanded further extension of time, till actual possession of the suit property. The first defendant has demanded further payments of sale consideration. On 19.11.1990, the first defendant has received Rs. 3,000/- and likewise, on 16.12.1990, 15.4.1991 and 17.9.1991, the first defendant has received Rs. 1,000/-, 3,000/- & 2,500/- respectively. The first defendant has represented that she is going to file a civil suit against the persons who are enjoying the suit property and on 22.3.1992 she has received Rs. 3,825/- and subsequently on 18.9.1992, she has received Rs. 3,000 and on 24.7.1996, 25.7.1996, 29.7.1996 and on 21.4.1997, the first defendant has received Rs. 1,800/-, 1,300/-, 1,000/- & 1,000/- respectively. The first defendant has filed a civil suit in Original Suit No.551 of 1992 against her husband and Others so as to recover possession of the suit property and ultimately got favourable decree on 18.11.1997. The plaintiffs have sent a legal notice to the defendants 1 to 3 and thereby demanded execution of registered sale deed. The defendants 1 to 3 have received the same and sent a reply notice on 27.1.1998. Even after receipt of notice, the defendants 1 to 3 have not come forward to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have paid excess amount of Rs. 425/-. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the first defendant, it is stated that the suit property is originally belonged to one Vellaiammal, mother-in-law of the first defendant and she executed a settlement deed in favour of the first defendant on 4.12.1959 and therefore, the first defendant has become absolute owner of the suit property. The husband of the first defendant has lived in the suit property along with his second wife and their son. It is true that the defendants 1 to 3 have agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs on 22.11.1990. It is false to say that the first defendant after execution of sale agreement has received part of sale consideration on various occasions from the plaintiffs. The first defendant is an uneducated and her thumb impressions have been surreptitiously introduced in the present case. The suit sale agreement has become time barred. On 5.11.1997, the defendants 1 to 3 have executed a sale deed in favour of the 7th defendant and thereby received Rs.