The court emphasized the importance of the date fixed for performance in the agreement and highlighted that equitable considerations are irrelevant in construing the provisions of the Limitation Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O. S. No. 10373 of 1980 dated 19-3- 1986 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement of sale of immoveable property dated 10-8-1974 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and for other incidental reliefs.

( 2 ) ON service of notice regarding admission, the respondents entered appearance through a counsel. Thereafter the appeal came up for admission on 15-6-1987. As it appeared to us that the issue relating to limitation had not been prima facie decided correctly, it was made known to the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the appeal would be heard on the point of limitation as to whether the suit was filed in time. Accordingly, at request, the appeal was adjourned to 22-6-1987. Again on 22-6-1987, it was adjourned to today. The appeal was taken up for hearing in the forenoon to hear the learned counsel on the point of limitation. The learned counsel for the respondents is absent though the appeal was passed over even in the afternoon. In the circumstances, we have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant and proceeded to pronounce our judgment.

( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether the trial court is justified in law in holding that the suit is not barred by time ?

( 4 ) NECESSARY facts which are not much in controversy and as found by the trial court are as follows : the appellant-defendant executed an agreement of sale on 10-8-1974 in favour of respondents 1 to 4 - plaintiffs 1 to 4 - agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to respondents 1 to 4 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/ -. He also received a sum of Rs. 5000/-es advance from the respondents. The balance of the consideration amount was required to be paid within a period of six months from the date of the agreement and the sale deed was required to be obtained. The relevant portions of the agreement are as follows:"2. The purchasers have this day paid an advance of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the hands of the Vendor, the receipt of which the vendor hereby acknowledges. 3. The balance of sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty- five thousand only) shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendor at the time of execution of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar. 4. The said balance of sale consideration shall be paid in full within a period of six months from this date. 9. Similarly if the purchasers do not complete the transactions within the time stipulated under this agreement, the vendor is at liberty to forfeit the advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only ). "thus the parties agreed that the agreement was to be performed within a period of six months from the date of the agreement. The appellant has not disputed the agreement. The suit property is a residential house consisting of ground and first floor. Under clause 6 of the agreement, the appellant had agreed to deliver vacant possession of the ground floor of the suit premises which was in his personal occupation. The first floor was in the possession of the tenant by name Abdul Sattar. The said Abdul Sattar filed a suit in O. S. No. 2095/1974 on 28-10-1974 in the Court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, against the appellant and the 1st respondent herein seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the suit premises in favour of respondent-1 or any other party. On the same day, he also obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the suit property in favour of respondent-1 or any other party. That suit was founded on an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the appellant in favour of the said Abdul Sattar on 15-9-1974, the order of temporary injunction was in force from 28-10-1974 to 25-11-1976 and on 25-11-1976, the suit was dismissed for default. On