MAHESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 21-12-2004 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No.18-A/2003 wherein the said court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent for specific performance of contract regarding land bearing survey No. 331 area 0.44 and survey No.334 area 0.40 hectare.

(2.) In the present case, appellant and respondent entered into contract according to which appellant promised to sell the land bearing survey No. 494/1 and 495/1 area one hectare (47 acres) @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The total cash consideration was Rs. 61,750/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the respondent to the appellant on the date of contract dated 14-8-1997. Survey number of the said land was converted to survey number 331 area 0.44 hectare and survey No.334 area 0.40 (total 0.84 hectare) after settlement. After settlement , the land was mutated in the name of the appellant on 10-2-2001,but the appellant/defendant did not execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent despite notice dated 21-8-2003 and 28-8-2003.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the date of contract is 14-8-1997 and the suit was filed on 24-9- 2003 i.e., after six years which is apparently barred and there was no term in the contract which could have been said to be a clause extending the period of limitation. He would further submit that the time was essence of the contract and it was not a continuous contract, therefore, it cannot be specifically performed., therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial Court is without substance.