BIMLA RANI AND OTHERS Vs. BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-plaintiffs are in Regular Second Appeal against concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.7.1995, much less alternative relief for recovery of Rs. 2,60,000/- was not granted.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submits that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 5.7.1995 the entire sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 1,30,00/- was paid and the plaintiffs were put into possession. The vendee was none else but Ramesh Kumar (since deceased). During his life time had been approaching the defendants for execution of the sale deed and defendants were putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Even after his demise, his legal representatives have been making similar request and legal notice was sent in the month of January. After refusal, the suit was filed on 1.2.2007. Since the sale deed did not envisage any specific date for execution and registration of the sale deed, thus, time was not essence of the contract, therefore, the suit was not barred on the ground of limitation, in fact, provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have been misinterpreted, thus, there is illegality and perversity in the impugned orders, much less substantial question of law arise for determination by this court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the paper book.