THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.636 of 2009 ORDER Plaintiff is appellant. He filed O.S.No.142 of 1999 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.07.1994 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.1.28 cents in Survey No.110/2 situated at Manuru Gram Panchayat of Eluru Mandal in West Godavari District. The Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, decreed O.S.No.142 of 1999, directing defendant, Sri Peteti Venkateshwar Rao, to execute registered sale deed, after receiving balance sale consideration. Defendant appealed being A.S.No.42 of 2003 on file of Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. During pendency of case, defendant died and his Legal Representatives came on record. Appellate Court, by impugned order and decree dated 02.01.2009, reversed judgment of trial Court and dismissed plaintiff’s suit. Aggrieved thereby, present Second Appeal is filed. In this appeal, parties are referred to, by their status in lower Court. The Case of plaintiff is that having agreed to sell suit schedule land for a total consideration of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only), defendant accepted advance amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and executed agreement of sale on 18.07.1994. Defendant agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff in August, 1994 but he postponed the same. After issuing legal notice demanding execution of sale deed, suit was filed for specific performance for agreement of sale. Defendant opposed the suit on two grounds, namely, that suit schedule land is property of Hindu Undivided Family, in which his elder brother Sri Veera Venkata Narsimha Rao had share and that defendant has no exclusive right to sell property. Consequently, suit filed on 21.01.1999 is barred by limitation under Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 (‘the Act’, for brevity). Before lower Court, plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. Sri Peteti Venkateshwar Rao gave evidence as D.W.1. Trial Court overruled objection of defendant and decreed suit which, as noticed supra, was reversed by appellate Court. Learned counsel for appellant, while placing reliance on Chaman lal v Smt. Surinder Kumari[1], K.Sambasiva Rao v P.Bangaru Raju[2], Pancharan Dhara v Monmatha Nath Maity (D) by L.R.s[3], submits that Article 54 of the Act is not attracted to facts of case, as defendant, by his conduct, extended time for performing his part of contract. He submits that possession was handed over to plaintiff and defendant did not take any steps to recover possession from which, an inference should be drawn that time for performing agreement Ex.A.1 was extended. He nextly submits that Ex.A.1 agreement was executed by D.W.1 on his behalf and on behalf of his brother by virtue of General Power of Attorney executed by him and therefore in effect, property was agreed to be sold by both the brothers. He relies on D.N.Raju v Smt.Santosh Verma[4]. There is no dispute that under Ex.A.1 agreement dated 18.07.1994, parties agreed to complete transaction by executing sale deed by August, 1994. There is also no dispute that suit was filed on 21.01.1999 beyond three years, which is the period prescribed by Article 54 of the Act. Whether defendant extended time for execution of sale deed made in August, 1994. If defendant takes such a plea , the burden is on him to adduce cogent and convincing evidence in proof of the same. No such evidence was let in. In absence of any such plea, inferentially, the Court cannot reach to a conclusion that time was extended. It is settled law that even after expiry of period agreed for completion of transaction, parties may extend time by exchange of letters or even by conduct in that behalf. No such convincing evidence was let in that defendant, at any point of time, by his conduct, extended time. The same fact that he did not initiate any steps for recovery of possession by itself does not lead to conclusion that time should be extended. Insofar as other plea of the counsel is concerned, appellate Court has recorded observations as follows, while rejecting plea. ...The plaintiff averments itself goes to show that defendant executed Ex.A.1 on his behalf and as a G.P.A. holder of other sharers. The evidence of P.W.2 also show that defendant got general power of attorney. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that on 18.07.1994, they approached the Sub-Registrar for obtaining a regular registered sale deed from the defendant, but, the Sub- Registrar objected to register the sale deed on the ground that G.P.A brought them is only a notarized one and it is not a registered one…First of all G.P.A. is produced before the Court. It may be said that the G.P.A. is in the custody of defendant. But, plaintiff did not issue any notice to the defendant to produce the G.P.A. Even the evidence of P.W.1 shows that G.P.A. they have produced before Sub-Registrar is not a valid one. Plaint copy in O.S.No.1057/1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Eluru filed by the daughter of the defendant Ex.P.9 is clearly goes to show that defendant has no exclusive right to alienate the suit land. In these facts and circumstances, it can only be said that defendant has no exclusive right to alienate the suit land. This Court does not see any strong reason to differ with view of the appellate Court. This Second Appeal does not involve any question of law and therefore, it is accordingly dismissed in limini. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) August 07, 2009 Bvv [1] AIR 1983 P&H 323 [2] 1985 (2) APLJ 241 [3] AIR 2006 SC 2281 [4] AIR 2007 AP 127