(1.) THE case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that on 9/3/1980, the respondents/defendants had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of the appellants for a sum of Rs.96,450/-. On the said date, the defendants had received a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff. On the date of agreement of sale, the appellants were put in possession of the suit property. Subsequently, it is stated that the defendant had received a further sum of Rs.450/- on 10/3/1980 and passed a receipt for the same. Further on 22/6/1980, the defendant through her son had received a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiffs and the same was endorsed by her son. It is also stated that the plaintiff had paid certain other amounts. Ultimately, the plaintiffs had issued a notice dated 20/2/1981, calling upon the defendants to remove the fence and the trees except mango trees, but the defendants did not send any reply notice. THEreafter, the suit has been filed for specific performance of contract.
(2.) APART from other findings recorded by the+ trial Court, the Trial Court under issue No.6 held that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was not filed within the period contemplated under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Thereafter, the appellants had filed an appeal in A.S. No.111 of 1987. The learned Single Judge has considered only the question of limitation and come to the conclusion that the suit having been filed after three years, barred by limitation. The said decision is under challenge in the present appeal.
(3.) WE have also independently gone through the evidence on record and we do not find any reason to differ from such conclusion arrived at by the courts below. It is thus obvious that the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, however, there would no order as to costs so far as the present appeal is concerned. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No. 7259 of 2002 is also dismissed.