IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the limitation period for specific performance claims under Section 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and the burden of proof on the party claiming limitation.

JUDGMENT :

This is an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 13/2009 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2008 passed in Title Suit No.671/2006 by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

2. This Court vide the order dated 07.01.2011 admitted the instant Appeal by formulating two substantial questions of law which reads as under:-

1. Whether in view of the finding that after the date of the agreement on 27.01.1994, the plaintiff approached the defendant only on 01.12.2000 offering balance amount for execution of the sale deed, the learned court below was justified in holding that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in terms of section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act ?

2. Whether, the learned Trial Court having come to a finding that the Defendant No. 2 has a title to the suit property in Issue No. 9, the appellate court was justified in reversing the same and dismissing the counter claim in a suit f or Specific Performance of Contract?

3. At the outset Mr. D. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the second substantial question of law does not arise in the instant Appeal taking into account that there was no Appeal filed against the dismissal of the counterclaim by the learned Trial Court, and as such, the dismissal of the counterclaim having attained finality, the second substantial question of law does not arise.

4. This Court is the opinion that once substantial questions of law are formulated in exercise of the powers under Section 100 (4) of the Code and sans any or some of the substantial question of law, so formulated, do not become insignificant or redundant in view of the decision rendered in the other substantial questions of law, this Court would be obligated in view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 100 (5) of the Code to answer to all the substantial questions of law so formulated as the whether the same is/are involved in the Second Appeal. In that view of the matter, let this Court decide the first substantial question of law so formulated as to whether the same is involved in the instant appeal and on the basis of the said decision, the significance or redundancy of the second substantial question of law would be taken up.

5. To ascertain whether the first substantial question of law which had been formulated, is a substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal, let this Court take note of the facts involved which led to the filing of the instant appeal. Before delving into the facts, this court finds it relevant to take note of that the first substantial question of law primarily revolves around the issue as to whether the suit filed for specific performance was within the period of limitation as prescribed in Article 54 of the schedule to the Indian limitation act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act of 1963’).

6. From a perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the predecessor-in-interest of the Appellant herein, one Rudreswar Sarma (since deceased) was the owner of plot of land measuring 3 Kathas in Dag No.331 covered by K.P No. 112 of Village -Odalbakra, Mouza-Beltola under P.S.-Dispur in the district of Kamrup. The said land is herein after referred to as the suit land. Late Rudreswar Sarma entered into an Agreement dated 27.01.1994 with the Respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the suit. This agreement dated 27.01.1994 had been exhibited in the suit as Exhibit 1.

7. In view of the contentions so forwarded at the hearing by the counsels of the parties, this Court finds it very necessary to take note of the contents of the said agreement– Exhibit 1. A perusal of Exhibit 1 shows that it was agreed that the total consideration for the sale of the suit land was Rs.80,000/-and of which Rs.40,000/-