SHANTILAL BAKTWARMAL JAIN Vs. MANA SAMADHAN KOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate for the appellants finally.

(2.) Learned advocate for the appellants vehemently contends that the primary reason for which the suit and the appeal have been dismissed, is that the suit has been held to be outside the period of limitation. He submits that while in 1972, the agreement had been reduced into writing and the plaintiff had been put in possession of the suit land till 1978, when his dispossession from the land has taken place, cause of action had arisen and in the circumstances, having regard to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, which speaks of running of period of limitation from the date mentioned in the agreement for performance or if no such date is mentioned from the date of notice of refusal, the suit ought to have been considered to be within the period of limitation. He wants to place construction that the plaintiff allegedly had been dispossessed in 1978, period of seeking specific performance started running since 1978 and the suit having been filed in 1980, the same was within limitation. He further submits that apart from aforesaid, evidence sufficiently bears out that the document in fact had been executed and there is no proper evidence coming in rebuttal of the same. He, therefore, urges this court to indulge into his request to admit the second appeal and allow the same granting decree of specific performance of agreement executed in 1972.

(3.) Although, learned advocate has quite earnestly argued the case as aforesaid, perusal of the judgments rendered by the two courts, thus far, have been concurrent in giving finding about that not only the suit being outside the period of limitation, but also there is refusal to grant decree on the ground of that there cannot be said to be any execution of document of agreement of sale.