1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1708 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1708 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1708 OF 2008 Shri Shabbir Akbarali Jamnagarwala ..Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Vs. Shri Ramdas Bhadale & Ors. ..Respondents (Orig. Defendants) Mrs. Kiran Bhagaliya with Ms. Asha Bhambwani,Advocates, for the appellant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 2nd September,2008 DATE: 2nd September,2008 DATE: 2nd September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. 2. Normally, the First Appeal is to be admitted. 2 However, I find that this is an exceptional case where the First Appeal need not be admitted. 3. The plaintiff/appellant claims to have purchased land Gat No.2308/2 in 1983-84 under different sale deeds from the defendants and their family members. According to the plaintiff, there was no well nor any source of water was available for irrigation of that land. Therefore, on 8.10.1984, an agreement took place between the plaintiff and the defendants whereby the defendants agreed to sell 5 gunthas (Ares) of land out of land Gat No.2308/1 for consideration of Rs.5,000/-. An amount of Rs.101/- was paid as earnest money. Thereafter, another agreement for sale was executed and registered on 30.7.1985 about the same contract. According to the plaintiff, on 8.11.1986, he paid further amount of Rs.2,000/- and balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.305 of 2001 in the year 2001 for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for compensation of Rs.1,97,202/-. The defendants denied any agreement dated 30.7.1985 or dated 8.11.1986 and receipt of further amount of 2,000/-. It was contended that the suit is barred by limitation because as per the agreement of 8.10.1984, the sale deed was to be executed within six months. After hearing the evidence, the learned trial Court rejected the 3 contention of the plaintiff about the alleged agreement dated 30.7.1985 and 8.11.1986 as the original document dated 30.7.1985 was not produced before the Court. The trial Court held that as per the terms of the contract dated 8.10.1984, the sale deed was to be executed within six months and the period of limitation of 3 years begins on expiry of six months and the suit could be filed on or before 8.4.1988, while it was actually filed in 2001. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation. With this finding, the suit came to be dismissed. Therefore, the First Appeal is filed. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the judgment. Admittedly, the alleged agreement dated 30.7.1985 which was duly registered, was not produced before the Court. The plaintiff had produced a document purporting to be carbon copy of that agreement. The trial Court held that the carbon copy is not admissible in evidence. As per the original agreement dated 8.10.1984, the sale deed was to be executed within six months. In view of the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation would begin to run from the expiry of the said period of six months. Therefore, the suit for specific performance of the contract could be filed on or before 8.4.1988. According to the plaintiff, on 8.11.1986, he had paid further amount of Rs.2,000/- for which a receipt was 4 passed. Even if this contention is accepted as per that receipt, according to the plaintiff, the sale deed was to be executed within 60 days. So, the period of 60 days would expire on 8.1.1987 and further period of 3 years could be counted from that date. Thus, the suit could be filed on or before 8.1.1990, while the suit is filed in 2001. 5. Taking into consideration all the circumstances the suit was barred by limitation. There is no substance in the Appeal. Therefore, the First Appeal stands dismissed summarily. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)