counsel for the appellant contended that the second defendant did not specifically plead in his written statement that his father was a bonafide purchaser for value. However, I have held that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and the suit filed by him is also barred by limitation. In the circumstances, merely because the second defendant had not specifically averred in his written statement that his father was a bonafide purchaser for value, the plaintiff cannot be granted the relief of specific performance of contract. Ex.A2 is not an agreement and is only a receipt even as per the version of the plaintiff and hence, answering of substantial questions of law would not arise as far as the present case is concerned. In view of all the reasons stated by me, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 20. In the result, i. the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. ii.the decree and judgment dated 01.12.2006 passed in A.S. No.25 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram, is upheld. iii.the decree and judgment dated 29.07.2005 passed in O.S. No.321 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villlupuram, is setaside. iv.The suit in O.S. No.321 of 2004 is dismissed with costs.
