RSA No. 3066 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3066 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.8.2009 Gurdial Singh ......Appellant Versus Baljinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri R.K. Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.6.1990, was dismissed. Baljinder Singh, Devinder Singh and Paramjit Singh, were owners of the land measuring 24 kanals. An agreement dated 8.6.1990 was entered by the said vendors with the present plaintiff for sale of 24 kanals of land. Sale deed in respect of 8 kanals of land was to be executed on or before 14.6.1990 whereas in respect of remaining 16 kanals of land, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.10.1990 or within one month of the sanction of the mutation in favour of the defendants. On 11.6.1990 one sale deed was executed in respect of 8 kanals of land in pursuance of the RSA No. 3066 of 2009 (2) agreement to sell dated 8.6.1990, whereas two sale deeds were executed on 10.10.1990 in respect of 2 kanals 13 marlas of land and the land measuring 5 kanals 7 marlas by Baljit Kaur widow of Paramjit Singh. It may be noticed that before 10.10.1990 Paramjit Singh died by leaving behind Baljit Singh and two minor sons defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The present suit for specific performance has been filed on 11.11.1998. The learned first Appellate Court has dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove as to on which date the mutation was sanctioned and the cause of action arisen in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit filed after 8 years was held to be not within the period of limitation. It was also found that the plaintiff has got sale deed executed from Baljit Kaur in the year 1990, therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek specific performance through the present suit for specific performance. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out the date of sanction of mutation which alone possibly could convey the starting point of cause of action to determine the period of limitation. Even otherwise, two sale deeds have been executed in the month of 10.10.1990 in respect of the part of the land for which the agreed date was 15.10.1990 or within one month of the sanction of mutation. Thus, the sanction of mutation even if it was agreed was not insisted upon by the plaintiff when seeking execution of the sale deed on 10.10.1990. Having got executed two sale deeds executed on 10.10.1990, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to seek specific performance by way of civil suit within three years from 15.10.1990 i.e., the date agreed for execution of the sale deed in respect of remaining land. Since the suit has been filed in November, 1998, it has been rightly found to be barred by limitation. RSA No. 3066 of 2009 (3) Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20.8.2009 ds