instituted. It cannot be believed that if appellant was willing to get the sale deed executed and the first respondent was not prepared to perform his part of the agreement under Ext.P1, appellant will not institute a suit for specific performance, if he had intention to purchase the property as agreed. Even if, it is taken that appellant did not want specific performance of the agreement for sale and, therefore, a suit for that purpose such was not instituted, he would have definitely instituted a suit for return of advance amount. As it cannot be believed that appellant would forgo an amount of Rs.3,71,000/- allegedly received from first respondent, the defence case was that appellant was prepared to purchase the property and later the advance amount received was paid back and was received by appellant appears to be correct. Even if it is taken that Ext.D1 agreement, based on the evidence of PW4 and Ext.P4 report cannot be accepted, the inaction on the part of appellant in not instituting a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale or suit for return of the amount, when the period of limitation has already expired, can only
