THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1201 of 2009 ORDER: The appellant herein filed O.S.No.76 of 2003 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla, against the respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16.02.1987. He pleaded that the mother of the respondent executed the agreement of sale and delivered possession of the property. According to him, his name was entered in the revenue records and he is in continuous possession of the said property. A notice, requiring the respondent to execute the sale deed, is said to have been issued, before filing of the suit. The respondent filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. He pleaded that the appellant obtained the thumb impression of his (respondent’s) mother and brought into existence, the agreement of sale. He denied the delivery of possession of the property. A serious objection as to the limitation was also raised. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through judgment dated 31.07.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.33 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, and the same was dismissed on 09.09.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 16.02.1997. In his written statement, the respondent not only raised the plea of limitation, but also contested the other averments pertaining to the agreement of sale, made in the plaint. The trial Court, however, did not frame any issue touching on the limitation. Only two issues were framed, viz., (1) Whether the sale agreement dated 16.02.1987 is valid agreement and bind on the defendant or not? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance as prayed for? On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were filed. On behalf of the respondent, DWs.1 to 3 were examined, but no document was filed. On dismissal of the suit, the appellant filed A.S.No.33 of 2006. The lower Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: (1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 16.2.1987 relied on by the appellant/plaintiff as executed by the mother of the defendant Smt.Neeli Narasamma during her life time is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? (2) Whether the relief of specific performance sought for by the appellant/plaintiff is within time ? (3) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to seek the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 16.2.1987 by the respondent/defendant as prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff ? (4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 in O.S.76/2003 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla suffers from any infirmities, or irregularities or illegalities and calls for any interfe- rence by this Court ? (5) To what relief? The appeal was dismissed on 09.09.2009. A simple glance at the date of agreement of sale, viz., 16.02.1987 and the date of filing of the suit would reveal that the suit was filed 16 years after the agreement was alleged to have been executed. The limitation stipulated for filing of a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale is three years from the date, if any, stipulated under the agreement or the date of refusal. The appellant did not take steps for execution of sale deed, during the lifetime of the mother of the respondent, the alleged signatory of the agreement. He filed the suit one and half year decades, from the date of agreement. Though no specific issue was framed touching on the question of limitation, obviously, in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Limitation Act and taking the evidence on record into account, the trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation. The lower Appellate Court concurred with that finding. On merits also, the appellant failed to prove the execution of the agreement Ex.A10. Except that the thumb impression of the mother of the respondent was present on it, it did not contain the signatures of any witnesses. In his evidence as PW.1, the appellant stated that the witnesses were very much there, but their signatures were not taken. The contradictions were elicited through him as well as PW.2. The Courts below have expressed their serious doubt as to the genuinity of the entries made in the revenue records or the alleged payment of cist. This court does not find any substantial question of law and the concurrent findings of the trial court and the lower appellate court do not warrant interference. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 27.12.2010 v v