DURAIKANNU NAICKER Vs. K RAMACHANDRA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant is the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 1.4.1994. THE case of the respondent was that the appellant/defendant is the owner of 72 cents in Survey No.180/1, 66 cents in Survey No.181/2C, Perungalathur Village, Tambaram Taluk and he agreed to sell both the extent of properties at the rate of Rs.7500/= per cent and received an advance of Rs.3,00,000/= and the properties were also delivered to the respondent for developing the same as house site and six months time was provided for completing the sale transaction. THE appellant/defendant handed over title deeds in respect of 66 cents and also executed the sale deed in respect of 66 cents and failed to deliver the documents in respect of 72 cents of land. THE appellant/defendant was also evading to execute the sale deed in respect of 72 cents of property and also failed to give the documents of title. THEreafter, the appellant/defendant sold 15 cents out of 72 cents in favour of the respondent's son and also received Rs.3,05,000/= on different dates. As the appellant failed to execute the sale deed in respect of 57 cents of property in Survey No.180/1 after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,30,000/=, the suit was filed for specific performance in respect of 57 cents of property in Survey No.180/1.

(3.) THE following are the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal:- "1. Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that the suit is not barred by limitation" 2. Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in the absence of any explanation for the inaction between 16.3.1995 to 6.2.1998""