1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.393 OF 2009 Babu Bhika Medhane & Ors. .... Appellants Vs. Sau. Indubai Vishnu Medhane .... Respondent Shri P.N. Joshi for the Appellants. Shri Girish R. Agrawal for the Respondent. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 25, 2010 P.C: 1. This is a second appeal filed by the original defendants impugning the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the two lower Courts below, decreeing the plaintiff s suit for specific performance. The suit for specific performance was of a registered agreement dated 15-10-1982. The plaintiff had agreed to purchase the suit lands bearing Block Nos.8 and 11 for a total consideration of Rs.6,000/-. It is an admitted position that an amount of Rs. 5,900/- was paid and thus virtually the entire consideration was received by the present appellants. A notice was given by the plaintiff 2 for specific performance on 23-2-1990. A reply to the notice was given by the present appellants/defendants on 29-3-1993 in which they stated that the agreement was a security for a loan transaction. The plaintiff, therefore, learnt that the defendants were not willing to perform their part of the contract when she received the reply of the defendants dated 29-3-1993. The suit was filed on 14-2-1996. It was, therefore, clearly filed within three years from the date the plaintiff got knowledge of refusal of performance which knowledge can be attributed to the plaintiff when she received the reply of the defendants dated 29-3-1993. 2. It was contended on behalf of the appellants/defendants that the onus was upon the plaintiff to obtain the necessary permission under the Watan Act. This can never be the case. The owner of the land are the present defendants and permission has always to be obtained by the owners of the land. In any case, this aspect of the matter has no bearing on the question of limitation. On a reading of the agreement in question, it cannot be said that there was any fixed date given for performance. The agreement provided that the 3 agreement would stand cancelled if there was no performance within four weeks from the date when the permission was obtained. This kind of clause does not give any fixed date for performance of the agreement. In the absence of any fixed date for performance within the agreement, the question of limitation can only be calculated from the date when the plaintiff received the knowledge that the defendants have refused to perform the contract. As discussed herein above, this happened on 29-3-1993 and the suit having been filed on 14-2-1996, the same was clearly within the period of limitation provided in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. It was argued that there was a substantial delay in filing the suit. It is well-settled that under the Indian law, mere delay cannot defeat a suit for specific performance. In the present case, it is seen that almost the entire consideration was paid at the time of execution of the agreement dated 15-10-1982 and this fact was mentioned in the agreement itself. Having received the entire consideration amount, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants to contend that prejudice is caused to them by the delay. In 4 these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal and the same is summarily dismissed. R.S. MOHITE, J.