Point of Law: When no date or period was prescribed for the performance of the contract, the period of limitation would start from the date of its refusal.

JUDGMENT :

Among the points argued by the respective counsel, the impact of second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act also came up for consideration. There are two limbs to Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The first limb would come into play when there is a specified date or period agreed into by the parties for its performance. The second limb would come into play when no such period or date fixed or agreed into by the parties. In the latter case, the period of limitation would commence from the date of notice of refusal to perform the part of contract. Does it mean that the contract for sale can be prolonged to an indefinite period under the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act ? Whether the transfer of ownership or alienation effected over the property would stand a valid notice of refusal to perform the part of contract as enumerated under the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act ? These questions require elaborate consideration in this appeal.

2. The suit is one for specific performance of the contract for sale, based on Ext.A2 agreement dated 5/8/2006. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the entire sale consideration was adjusted towards the amount due from the plaintiff and as such no amount was either tendered or paid in cash as on the date of Ext.A2 agreement. Though the entire sale consideration was paid as per Ext. A2 agreement, no sale deed was executed on that day. In fact, at that time, nothing was left out to be performed by the first defendant under Ext.A2, except registration of a sale deed. Nothing was also left out to be performed by the plaintiff on that day except getting the sale deed executed. But no sale deed was executed on that day. It is not explained by the plaintiff why an agreement for sale was executed on that day instead of getting a sale deed executed inspite of the fact that the entire sale consideration was paid on that day. Further, no specific period or date was specified in the agreement for its performance though the entire sale consideration was alleged to have been adjusted towards the amount due from the defendant. No reason whatsoever was made mentioned or whispered anywhere in the contract, Ext.A2, for not getting a sale deed executed on that day. Further, no reason was made mentioned for not incorporating any specified date/period for its performance. They did not have any case of defective title to the property or anything left out to be performed so as to convey a valid title as on the date of contract.

3. The suit was instituted on 15.11.2010. Ext.A2 contract is dated 05.08.2006. The plaint schedule property is having an extent of 35 cents. It was obtained by the first defendant under Ext.A1 settlement deed. He sold the property under Ext.A3 sale deed in the year 2008. It is after the expiry of more or less two years from the said sale, the present suit was filed, that too, after the expiry of more or less four years three months from the date of Ext.A2 sale deed and the suit was instituted by advancing a case of oral demand and refusal thereof as on 01/11/2010 so as to bring the same within the period of limitation under the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

4. The act of execution of registered sale deed, Ext.A3, with respect to the plaint schedule property, by itself, amounts to the refusal to perform the part of contract by the first defendant when delivery of possession of property was also given under that document, which amounts to notice to all concerned including the plaintiff even by virtue of operation of the expression “a person is said to have notice” as defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, there is no much merit in the contention that the plaintiff has got notice of refusal only when an oral demand was raised on 01.11.2010.

5. The suit was instituted within a period of two years from the date of a