JUDGMENT : 1. The Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2014 passed in A.S.Nos.121 & 139 of 2012 respectively on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.2012 passed in O.S.Nos.386 of 2005 & 889 of 2002 respectively on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Salem, are under challenge in the abovesaid second appeal Nos.254 & 255 of 2015. 2. S.A.No.254 of 2015 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : “(a). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was correct and justified in holding that Ex.B1, alleged agreement of sale is true, especially when it is denied and on whom does the burden of proof lie to prove Ex.B1? (b). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was correct and justified in holding that the suit is not barred when filed years after alleged execution and when time for performance has been fixed and the period has expired or barred by limitation from the date fixed for performance? (c). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was correct and justified in decreeing the suit for relief of specific performance even without framing a point about readiness and willingness?” 3. S.A.No.255 of 2015 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “(a). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was correct and justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance when plaintiff has come to court with unclean hands regarding possession and when his plea of being put in possession in falsified by the recitals in Ex.B15 and B16 which do not mention about possession and only mention and contemplate possession at a future date? (b). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was correct and justified in decreeing the suit for relief of specific performance when there is no explanation for the inordinate and enormous delay in filing the suit 24 years after alleged agreement; 23 years after date fixed; two years after issuance of notice and in those circumstances is not the suit barred by limitation and lack of readiness and willingness to perform? 4. Considering the scope of issues involved in the matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 5. 4. Considering the scope of issues involved in the matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 5. The deceased Kunji Gounder has laid the suit in O.S.No.889 of 2002 for the relief’s of declaration and permanent injunction and subsequently, the suit has been amended for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property. 6. The respondent Sellappan, who is the second defendant in O.S.No.889 of 2002, has laid the suit in O.S.No.386 of 2005 against the deceased Kunji Gounder for the relief of specific performance. The first defendant Marimuthu in O.S.No.889 of 2002 is the wife of the second defendant Sellappan. 7. Materials placed on record go to show that the suit property originally belonged to Sellammal, the mother of Kunji Gounder and it is admitted that in respect of the plaint schedule property, she had executed a settlement deed dated 21.04.1981 in favour of the deceased Kunji Gounder and the abovesaid settlement deed has been marked as Ex.A1 in this matter and on the basis of Ex.A1 settlement deed, the deceased Kunji Gounder has sought for the relief’s of declaration, permanent injunction and possession in respect of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.889 of 2002 and the abovesaid case of the deceased Kunji Gounder had been resisted by the respondent Sellappan on the footing that the deceased Kunji Gounder and the respondent Sellappan had entered into a sale agreement in respect of the plaint schedule property on 15.07.1981, whereunder, it is stated that the plaintiff, Kunji Gounder and Sellappan, son of Mariappa Gounder had jointly agreed to sell the entire extent of 84 cents in the said survey numbers and half right in the Well as agreed to the respondent Sellappan. The mother Sellammal had executed the settlement deed dated 21.04.1981 in favour of the deceased Kunji Gounder as well as her grandson M.Sellappan S/o. Mariappa Gounder and accordingly, it is stated that as per the abovesaid sale agreement, the parties thereto had agreed the sale price at Rs.20,000/- and it is further stated that the respondent Sellappan had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on the date of the sale agreement to the deceased Kunji Goudner and M.Sellappan and further, it is also stated by the respondent Sellappan that on 13.12.1981, he had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the balance sale price to the abovesaid vendors and it is further stated that on 13.12.1981, the vendors abovestated had handed over the possession of the entire extent of 84 cents to the respondent Sellappan and accordingly, the respondent had been in the possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 84 cents in the said survey numbers and further, it is also the case of the respondent Sellappan that on 23.03.1983, the deceased Kunji Gounder and M.Sellappan had received the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,000/- from him and agreed to execute the sale deed whenever demanded and also made an endorsement to that effect in the sale agreement and pursuant to the abovesaid sale agreement, the respondent Sellappan had made considerable improvements in the property alienated by digging a bore well, obtaining a service connection etc., and also paying kist in his name and thereby, been in the possession and enjoyment of the abovesaid property in his own right and accordingly, it is also pleaded by the respondent Sellappan that on account of the continuous and long possession of the abovesaid extent of 84 cents openly and continuously for more than the statutory period, he had perfected title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and accordingly, the deceased Kunji Gounder is, therefore, not entitled to obtain the relief’s claimed in his suit and on the other hand, the respondent Sellappan is entitled to obtain the relief of specific performance based on the sale agreement and it is thus seen that the respondent Sellappan had chosen to lay the suit in O.S.No.386 of 2005 seeking the relief of specific performance against the deceased Kunji Gounder. It is the further case of the respondent Sellappan that as regards the co-vendor M.Sellappan is concerned, his legal heirs had executed the sale deed in respect of 42 cents in his favour by way of a sale deed dated 09.01.2003 and accordingly, he had been in the possession and enjoyment of the abovesaid extent of 42 cents in his own right and it is only the deceased Kunji Gounder, who had not executed the sale deed in respect of his property viz., the suit property and accordingly, the suit has come to be laid for the relief of specific performance. 8. In O.S.No.386 of 2005, the deceased Kunji Gounder had taken the plea that the sale agreement dated 15.07.1981 had not been executed by him and no such sale agreement had been entered into between him and the respondent Sellappan in respect of the suit property and it is stated that he being an illiterate person and on many occasions, his sister viz., Marimuthu, the first defendant in O.S.No.889 of 2002 had obtained thumb impression from him on the footing that she needed it for paying kist to the suit property and in this connection, the deceased Kunji Gounder had also pleaded in his plaint as he and his family members are residing elsewhere and as his sister is residing nearer the suit property, she used to pay the kist in respect of the suit property on his behalf and accordingly, it is stated that taking advantage of the defendant's innocence and illiteracy, the respondent Sellappan would have created the said sale agreement in question and the deceased Kunji Gounder had not executed any sale agreement in favour of the respondent Sellappan agreeing to convey the suit property in his favour as alleged by him and it is further false to state that the entire sale consideration paid by the respondent Sellappan as pleaded and that he had been put in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and it is further stated that the suit property had been in the possession and enjoyment of the deceased Kunji Gounder and after the institution of the suit by him, the respondent Sellappan had illegally trespassed into the suit property during August 2003 and therefore, it is stated that the respondent Sellappan is not entitled to obtain the relief of specific performance as projected by him. 9. 9. It is thus seen that the main issue to be determined in this case is as regards the truth and validity of the sale agreement dated 15.07.1981, as abovenoted, the deceased Kunji Gounder had impugned the sale agreement dated 15.07.1981 marked as Ex.B1. Impugning the same, no such agreement had been entered into between him and the respondent Sellappan as putforth by the respondent Sellappan in his pleas and also impugned the exchange of notice between the parties as regards the same and also pleaded that the abovesaid sale agreement would have been created by the respondent Sellappan taking advantage of his innocence and illiteracy by misusing the thumb impression obtained from him by his sister Marimuthu in the guise of paying kist in respect of the suit property and therefore, in toto, it is seen that he had challenged the truth and validity of the sale agreement marked as Ex.B1. In the light of the abovesaid defence putforth by the deceased Kunji Gounder, particularly, as no such agreement had been entered into between the parties concerned as regards the sale of the suit property as putforth by the respondent Sellappan, in such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the trial Court, at the foremost, the respondent Sellappan should establish that the sale agreement had been entered into between the parties concerned in respect of the sale of the suit property for the price recited therein. 10. To establish the truth of Ex.B1 sale agreement, it is seen that the respondent Sellappan had chosen to examine one A.Durairajan as DW3, who is said to be the scribe of the sale agreement Ex.B1. Though it is found that Ex.B1 sale agreement had been attested by the two witnesses and when it has been accepted by the respondent Sellappan, the witnesses are available, there is no plausible reason offered by the respondent Sellappan, as to why, he had not endeavoured to examine the witnesses to the abovesaid sale agreement. Though it is found that Ex.B1 sale agreement had been attested by the two witnesses and when it has been accepted by the respondent Sellappan, the witnesses are available, there is no plausible reason offered by the respondent Sellappan, as to why, he had not endeavoured to examine the witnesses to the abovesaid sale agreement. On a reading of the evidence of DW3 in toto, as rightly found by the trial Court, though he would aver that the parties thereto had put their signatures/thumb impression in the sale agreement in his presence, during the course of cross examination, he has deposed that he had not obtained the thumb impression from the deceased Kunji Gounder and also not obtained the thumb impression from the witnesses and deposed that he had been given the document containing two thumb impressions and does not know as to how the other thumb impressions had been obtained in the document and it is also stated by him that the respondent Sellappan had secured the papers for writing the agreement and he has also admitted that it is correct to state that he had not seen the deceased Kunji Gounder as well as M.Sellappan and it is only the Panchayatars, who had obtained their signatures/thumb impressions and handed over the document to him and from the above evidence of DW3, during the course of cross examination, it is seen that DW3 would not have witnessed the execution of the sale agreement by the deceased Kunji Gounder and according to him, it is only the panchayatars, who had obtained the signatures/thumb impressions from the vendors, particularly, Kunji Gounder and given the document to him for writing. Accordingly, it is noted that the trial Court had not placed reliance upon the evidence of DW3 for accepting the truth and validity of Ex.B1 sale agreement. Despite the evidence of DW3 pointing in the abovesaid fashion, the respondent Sellappan had not endeavoured to examine the witnesses to the said document to establish the genuineness of the same. 11. Furthermore, according to the respondent, he had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on the date of the agreement. Despite the evidence of DW3 pointing in the abovesaid fashion, the respondent Sellappan had not endeavoured to examine the witnesses to the said document to establish the genuineness of the same. 11. Furthermore, according to the respondent, he had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on the date of the agreement. Further, according to him, on 13.12.1981, he had paid a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the balance sale consideration to the alleged vendors and also pleaded that on the said date, the property described in the sale agreement had been handed over to him by the alleged vendors, but, there is no material placed to evidence that on 13.12.1981, the deceased Kunji Gounder and M.Sellappan had handed over the possession of the property described in the sale agreement to the respondent Sellappan and on the other hand, the recital contained in the said endorsements as regards the delivery of possession is found to be scored of by the parties concerned. Therefore, the case putforth by the respondent Sellappan that he had been entrusted the possession of the property on 13.12.1981 by the alleged vendors as such cannot be countenanced. Further more, it is stated by the respondent Sellappan that he had paid the entire balance sale consideration in toto to the alleged vendors on 23.03.1983 and the endorsement with reference to the same as seen in the sale agreement only recites the vendors had agreed to execute the sale deed and hand over the possession of the property to the respondent Sellappan as and when demanded. It is thus seen that by way of the endorsement dated 23.03.1983 found in Ex.B1 sale agreement, the property had not been entrusted to the possession of the respondent Sellaappan either on 13.12.1981 or on 23.03.1983 and the alleged vendors had only assured to execute the sale deed and hand over the possession of the property as and when demanded by the respondent Sellappan. In such view of the matter, the plea of the respondent Sellappan that he has been put in the possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in the sale agreement on 13.12.1981 is found to be a false plea and in such view of the matter, as rightly putforth by the deceased Kunji Gounder, he had not parted with the possession of the suit property in favour of the respondent Sellappan pursuant to the sale agreement marked as Ex.B1. 12. 12. In this matter, there is dispute between the parties as regards the exchange of notice concerning the sale agreement. The deceased Kunji Gounder disputing that no such notice had been exchanged and on the other hand, the respondent Sellappan putting forth the case that the parties had exchanged notices. Further, inasmuch as the Courts below had failed to go into the question of the readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent Sellappan in executing the sale deed as recited in Ex.B1 and the same is the sine qua non for entitling the respondent Sellappan to obtain the relief of specific performance, it is noted that as rightly putforth that the counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the deceased Kunji Gounder, the respondent Sellappan having failed to establish the readiness and willingness on his part to obtain the sale deed from the deceased Kunji Gounder right from the inception of the alleged sale agreement, on that ground alone, is found disentitled to obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance. 13. Even as regards the payment of Rs.5,000/- on 13.12.1981 and the balance sum of Rs.13,000/- on 23.03.1983, the respondent Sellappan had chosen to examine only the scribe of the endorsement concerned as DW2 and not chosen to examine the witnesses said to have witnessed the abovesaid payments. Be that as it may, it has to be seen whether the respondent Sellappan had been always ready and willing to perform his part of the sale by tendering the balance sale consideration in time and obtain the sale deed from the deceased Kunji Gounder as sought to be made out. 14. On a reading of the recitals contained in Ex.B1 sale agreement, it is seen that assuming for the sake of arguments, the sale agreement to be a true document, the parties thereto had agreed to complete the sale transaction on or before 30.05.1982. Therefore, when as per the case of the respondent Sellappan, he had parted only a sum of Rs.2,000/- on the date of the sale agreement, he should have endeavoured to pay the balance sale consideration to the alleged vendors on or before 30.05.1982 and obtain the sale deed from them as recited in the agreement. However, even as per the case projected by the respondent Sellappan, he had parted with the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,000/- only on 23.03.1983. However, even as per the case projected by the respondent Sellappan, he had parted with the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,000/- only on 23.03.1983. As to why he had not endeavoured to pay the balance sale consideration within the time agreed to and obtain the sale deed from the alleged vendors, there is no proper explanation on his part. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,000/- had been parted with by the respondent Sellappan on 23.03.1983, accordingly, when as per the case of the respondent Sellappan, he had paid the entire sale consideration on 23.03.1983, no explanation has been offered on his part as to why thereafter, he had not chosen to obtain the sale deed from the deceased Kunji Gounder in respect of 42 cents belonging to Kunji Gounder. It is seen that only after the deceased Kunji Gounder had laid the suit in O.S.No.889 of 2002 seeking the relief’s of declaration and permanent injunction and thereafter, for recovery of possession, the respondent Sellappan had chosen to come forward with the case as if there is a sale agreement entered into between the parties in respect of the property in dispute and thereafter, only in the year 2005, the respondent Sellappan had chosen to lay the suit against the deceased Kunji Gounder seeking the relief of specific performance based on the abovesaid sale agreement. It is noted that O.S.No.386 of 2005 has been laid by the respondent Sellappan only on 30.04.2005 for enforcing the sale agreement dated 15.07.1981, it is thus seen that nearly 24 years after the execution of the sale agreement Ex.B1, the respondent Sellappan has come forward with the suit seeking the discretionary relief of specific performance based on the same. With reference to the same, it is pleaded by the respondent Sellappan that as the deceased Kunji Gounder had agreed to execute the sale deed as and when demanded by him and accordingly, he had been put in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the deceased Kunji Gounder and after the exchange of the notices only, he had been made known about the refusal of the deceased Kunji Gounder of his performance in respect of the sale agreement, he had chosen to institute the suit for the relief of specific performance. However, as above discussed, there is no material worth acceptance placed by the respondent Sellappan that he had been put in the possession of the property in dispute by the deceased Kunji Gounder based on the sale agreement. As the abovesaid case is found to be unacceptable, considering the alleged endorsement of payments of balance sale consideration endorsed in the sale agreement, thus, it is found that only after the institution of the suit by the deceased Kunji Gounder, it is seen that the respondent Sellappan had trespassed into the suit property and therefore, the deceased Kunji Gounder is found to have been necessitated to seek the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondent Sellappan. 15. As rightly putforth by the counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the deceased Kunji Gounder, if really the sale agreement had been entered into between the parties and if really, the respondent Sellappan had paid the entire sale consideration, particularly, to the deceased Kunji Gounder, he would not have waited for several years to obtain the sale deed from the deceased Kunji Gounder and his legal representatives. On the other hand, inasmuch as no such agreement had been entered into between the parties, it is seen that the respondent Sellappan had not endeavoured to obtain the sale deed immediately and chosen to lay the suit only in the year 2005. With reference to the same, as above discussed, when the evidence of DW3 is not safe to conclude that the deceased Kunji Gounder had subscribed to the sale agreement by affixing his LTI, particularly, he having not affixed his LTI in the presence of DW3 and when according to the deceased Kunji Gounder, no such sale agreement had been entered into between the parties concerned and taking advantage of the illiteracy and innocence, his LTI obtained by his sister Marimuthu and making use of the same, the sale agreement would have been created. Accordingly, it is seen that as rightly determined by the trial Court, when the truth and validity of Ex.B1 sale agreement itself has not been established by the respondent Sellappan and when the evidence of DW3 with reference to the same found to be not satisfactory and unreliable, it is found that the evidence of DW3 as regards the further payment of the sale consideration and the endorsement pertaining to the same, by itself would not render the sale agreement Ex.B1 as a true and valid document. Therefore, considering the factual aspects of the matter, particularly, the respondent Sellappan had not endeavoured to obtain the sale deed from the deceased Kunji Gounder, even after the alleged payment of entire sale consideration as early as 23.03.1983 and on the other hand, chosen to lay the suit with reference to the same only in the year 2005, the abovesaid indifference and latches on the part of the respondent Sellappan would itself go to show that he has never been ready and willing to complete the sale transaction and on the other hand, as rightly determined by the trial Court, making use of the LTI of the deceased Kunji Gounder, the sale agreement in question is found to have been created by the respondent Sellappan with the help of his henchmen and accordingly, have come forward with the suit belatedly with reference to the same and in such view of the matter, when the readiness and willingness on the part of the purchaser being sine qua non for entitling him to the discretionary relief of specific performance and in so far as the abovesaid aspect of the matter has not been established by the respondent Sellappan in any angle as above discussed and furthermore, when the truth and validity of the sale agreement itself has not been satisfactorily established by the respondent Sellappan, in all, it is seen that considering the latches and delay on the part of the respondent Sellappan in enforcing the sale agreement, assuming to the same to be a genuine document, on that score alone, it is seen that he would not be entitled to seek and obtain the specific performance of the same. 16. 16. Considering the fact that the respondent Sellappan had not been put in the possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale agreement or the endorsement found therein, accordingly, it is seen that the respondent had also putforth the claim of adverse title to the suit property as his defence. However, his case that he had been put in the possession of the suit property pursuant to the payment of the sale consideration and his further case of adverse plea to the suit property not being consistent to each other and found to be mutually contradictory and furthermore, when there is no material worth acceptance on the part of the respondent that he had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property, openly, continuously to the knowledge of the deceased Kunji Gounder by exercising animus attitude towards him beyond the statutory period, the trial Court had rightly disbelieved his above case and held that he is not entitled to claim right over the suit property by way of adverse possession. 17. Furthermore, though it is pleaded by the respondent Sellappan that the other co-vendor M.Sellappan's legal heirs had executed the sale deed in his favour, which document has come to be marked as Ex.B9, as rightly determined by the trial Court with reference to the truth and validity of Ex.B9 sale deed, the respondent Sellappan had not chosen to examine the alleged vendors in support of his case, particularly, when the abovesaid case of the respondent Sellappan had been stoutly disputed by the deceased Kunji Gounder and his legal representatives. 18. In the light of the above discussions, in toto, it is found that the respondent Sellappan had failed to establish the truth and validity of Ex.B1 sale agreement. 18. In the light of the above discussions, in toto, it is found that the respondent Sellappan had failed to establish the truth and validity of Ex.B1 sale agreement. The respondent Sellappan has failed to establish his readiness and willingness to complete the sale transaction and the respondent has failed to establish that he had been put in the possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale agreement as putforth by him and the respondent Sellappan has failed to establish his plea of adverse title of the suit property and as above discussed, on account of the latches and delay on the part of the respondent Sellappan in obtaining the sale deed from the deceased Kunji Gounder or his legal representatives within a reasonable time, after the alleged payment of the entire sale consideration and on the other hand, considering his attitude in laying the suit much belatedly in the year 2005 for seeking the relief of specific performance, in all, the abovesaid aspects pointing to the absence of the readiness and willingness on his part in obtaining the sale deed from the deceased Kunji Gounder or his legal representatives, the readiness and willingness aspect being the essential ingredient for entitling the purchaser to seek the relief of specific performance, in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the respondent Sellappan having failed to establish the abovesaid crucial aspect of the matter, is not entitled to seek and obtain the relief of specific performance. 19. 19. In view of the abovesaid determinations, the first appellate Court is found to have erred in holding that Ex.B1 sale agreement is a true and valid instrument by wrongly casting the burden of proof on the part of the deceased Kunji Gounder and his legal representatives with reference to the same and the first appellate Court has erred in not going into the question of readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent Sellappan for entitling him to obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance in his favour and the same being the essential ingredient for entitling the respondent in obtaining the relief of specific performance and furthermore, the first appellate Court in not going into the aspect of readiness that fall on the part of the respondent Sellappan in seeking the relief of specific performance in the right perspective and in toto, considering that the suit laid by the respondent Sellappan is also time barred, in all, the first appellate Court is totally not justified in dismissing the suit laid by the deceased Kunji Gounder and decreeing the suit laid by the respondent Sellappan and the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeals are accordingly, answered against the respondent Sellappan and in favour of the Legal Representatives of the deceased Kunji Gounder. For the reasons aforestated, both the Judgement and Decree dated 16.12.2014 passed in A.S.Nos.121 & 139 of 2012 respectively on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem are set-aside and the Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.2012 passed in O.S.Nos.386 of 2005 & 889 of 2002 respectively on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif, Salem, are confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeals are allowed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, are closed.