THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1372 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellants filed O.S.No.11 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 22.12.1996. It was pleaded that the respondents agreed to sell an extent of Acs.32.00 of land at the rate of Rs.9,500/- per acre and that on the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid as advance. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is said to have been paid on 27.01.1997. It is stated that though the entire consideration was paid by them, on 01.02.1997, a sale deed was executed only for an extent of Acs.8.00 of land through Ex.A3 and as regards remaining, the respondents dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. The possession of the entire property is said to have delivered in the year 1997. With these pleadings, they sought the relief of specific performance in respect of Acs.24.00 of land mentioned in item No.2 of ‘A’ schedule property. The respondents filed a common written statement. According to them, the appellants were not possessed of adequate means and they were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract. It is stated that though the agreement was entered into on 22.12.1996 and was required to be concluded within few months, the appellants paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by 01.02.1997 and agreed for execution of the sale deed in respect of Acs.8.00 of land and for adjustment of the remaining amount towards the loss sustained by the respondents on account of breach by the appellants. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 23.11.2009. The appellants filed A.S.No.265 of 2009 in the Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Markapur. The appeal was dismissed on 22.09.2011. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 22.12.1996, in respect of item No.2 of ‘A’ schedule property. The respondents opposed the suit by filing common written statement. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek specific performance of contract of sale, dated 22.12.1996, regarding ‘A’ schedule property? (2) Whether the time is essence of contract as pleaded by the defendants? (3) Whether the plaintiffs have given up the suit contract prior or after execution of the sale deed, dated 01.02.1999? (4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation as pleaded by the defendants? Appellant No.1 deposed as P.W.1 and he filed Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B14 were filed. The suit was dismissed, so was A.S.No.265 of 2009 filed against the decree. The respondents admitted the execution of agreement of sale, marked as Ex.A1. It appears that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid on the date of execution of the agreement of sale. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid at a later point of time, on 27.01.1997. Few days thereafter, the respondents executed a sale deed in respect of Acs.8.00 of land, marked as Ex.A3. In case the respondents did not come forward to execute the sale deed in respect of the remaining extent, the appellants were supposed to take immediate steps to compel the respondents to perform their part of the obligation. Neither any suit was filed nor any other proceedings were initiated till the present suit, namely O.S.No.11 of 2008, was filed. For a period of ten years, the appellants did not take any meaningful steps. On the face of it, the suit was barred by limitation. The starting point of limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act would be either the date of agreement or the date on which the party concerned refused to perform his part of contract. In the instant case, a deemed refusal can be discerned from the fact that the sale deed was executed only for Acs.8.00 of land. The plea of the respondents that the amount paid by the appellants was adjusted towards consideration for Acs.8.00 of land, and damages payable to them on account of repudiation of the contract must be accepted. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have recorded cogent reasons for refusing the relief of specific performance. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.12.2011. kdl