1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2007 Shri Eknath Raghoji Dhatrak Since deceased through his L.R.S A) Manohar Eknath Dhatrak & Ors. ...Appellants. v. 1 Smt. Narmadabai Sajan Thete & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Ashok Mishra i/by Rohit Tiwari, advs. For the Appellants. Mr.Vijay Gharat, adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 1st September , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. The present appellant had filed regular civil suit no.19 of 1986 for specific performance of the contract for sale of the land gat no.30 admeasuring 3 H 94 R to the extent of Northern half share. According to him, on 5.6.1978, he had entered into an agreement with the deceased Sajan Thete whereby said Sajan had agreed to sell suit land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.6,000/-. Out of that consideration amount, sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid to Sajan and on the same day, possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. As per the agreement, sale deed was to be executed within 4 years from the date of agreement on payment of balance amount. 2 According to he plaintiff/appellant, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Sajan failed to execute the same. Defendants on the other hand contested the suit denying any such agreement. They also denied that the possession was given to the plaintiff. According to them the deceased Sajan was addicted to drinking liquor and taking advantage of that, plaintiff had got executed some document, therefore, it is not binding on them. Suit is barred by limitation. Defendant nos.10 and 11 are the subsequent purchasers from the defendant nos.1 to 9 after death of Sajan. According to them, they are the bonafide purchasers without any knowledge of the previous contract if any with the appellant . According to them, they have purchased the suit land for consideration of Rs.60,000/-. 2 The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove agreement for sale and payment of consideration and that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial Court also found that suit is barred by limitation. Plaintiff filed regular civil appeal no.150/97. That appeal also came to be dismissed. The appellate Court came to conclusion that agreement had taken place between the plaintiff and the deceased Sajan but the plaintiff had failed 3 to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. According to the appellate Court , the plaintiff had also failed to prove that agreement was entered into for legal necessity of the family. It was held that suit is also barred by the limitation. Hence the Second Appeal. 3 Beside the fact that, there is concurrent finding of the fact by the Courts below that the deceased Sajan has no legal necessity to enter into contract, that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, both the Courts found that suit is barred by the limitation. Record reveals that the alleged agreement for sale had taken place on 5.6.1978. The sale deed was to be executed within four years from that date. Therefore, period of limitation would begin to run from 5.6.1982 when the period of four years was over. It is material to note that on 9.7.82, the defendants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Sajan had filed regular civil suit no.256 of 1982 for perpetual injunction against the present plaintiff on the ground that he was trying to interfere in their possession. They had also denied that there was any agreement for sale. By filing that suit, defendants had made clear that they were not willing to execute the sale deed. In spite of that, the plaintiff filed present suit on 6.2.1986, i.e. more than three 4 years from 5.6.1982 as well as more than 3 years after the suit was filed by the defendants on 9.7.1982. In view of Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963, period of limitation for suit for specific performance of a contract is three years and the period begins to run from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. In this case date was fixed and period of limitation would begin to run from 5.6.82. Even the plaintiff had notice of refusal, when suit was filed by the defendants on 9.7.82. Therefore, suit for specific performance was clearly barred by the limitation. In view of these circumstances and facts, no question of law is involved in the present appeal. 4 Therefore, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)