1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.462 OF 2008 Sukdeo Rayaji Suryavanshi ..Appellants (deceased) through Lrs & anr. V/s. Shivaji Sukdeo Jadhav & anr. ..Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.M.V.Kotwal with Mr.Ashwain Kapadnis, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 7TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . This is a Second Appeal by the plaintiff, who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 2. The plaintiff filed suit for the specific performance of the contract alleging that the defendant had entered into the Sale of the suit properties for a consideration of Rs.8,100/-. The plaintiff had paid the consideration to the defendant. The defendant avoided to execute the Sale Deed as such suit had come to be instituted for the specific 2 performance of the contract. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that the suit was barred by limitation and raised other defences also. The learned Judge of the Trial Court however, found that the defendant had delivered the possession of the suit property and in pursuance to the Agreement executed, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He further found that the suit was instituted for the specific performance of the contract and suit was not within limitation and holding so, he dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the Order of the learned Trial Judge, an Appeal was preferred before the District Judge. The District Judge also found that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed the Appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the suit could not be 3 said to be barred by limitation as no time was fixed and there was no refusal on the part of the defendant. He submitted that under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, time begins to run, if there is time fixed, from that date or from date of refusal. After having gone through the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, it is found that the plaintiff admitted in his evidence that the Sale Deed was to be executed within a period of two months of the execution of the Agreement. There was refusal on the part of the defendants. The Courts below have considered all these aspects. They also found that the suit was not instituted within a period of three years. I do not find any perversity on the reasons given. There are two concurrent findings. There is no substance in the Second Appeal and the same stands dismissed. (C.L.PANGARKAR, J.) 4