Reckoning of period of limitation.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 75 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai are, the appellants in this appeal. The respondent is the defendant in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs laid the suit for specific performance of two agreements of sale in respect of immovable items, both dated 7.11.1973 and marked in the case as Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiffs themselves were in possession of the properties as tenants under the defendant. Under Ex.A.1 an advance of Rs. 9,000 was paid and under Ex.A2 an advance of Rs. 6,000 was paid. There was a further payment of Rs. 3,500 under Ex.A3 and there is a controversy as to whether it was towards the sale agreements. There were other tenants in the properties and it was stipulated in the sale agreements Exs.A.1 and A2 that on the defendant evicting the tenants and giving notice through registered post to the plaintiffs with regard to delivery of vacant possession, the plaintiffs shall complete the sale within three months from the date of the receipt of the notice. The plaintiffs laid the suit for specific performance even though the tenants did not get evicted. The suit had come to be laid on 23.1.1978.

3. The defendant contested the suit mainly saying that it was barred by limitation. There were other aspects of contest by the defendant and we need not trouble ourselves with them since the concentration on the question of limitation will primarily be decisive, with regard to the relief of specific performance claimed by the plaintiffs.

4. The Court below formulated the relevant issues on the pleadings put forth by the parties, and after the parties placed their evidence oral and documentary, assessed it and the Court below held that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs in the alternative have also asked for refund of the monies paid by them pursuant to the agreements of sale and this relief was also negatived to the plaintiffs on the ground of limitation. That is how the plantiffs have come to prefer this appeal.

5. Mr. A. Ramanathan, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs would first plead for countenancing the prayer of his clients for specific performance of the sale agreements Exs.A.1 and A.2. There is a counter plea by Mr. P. Ananthakrishnan Nair, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants stating that the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation. The Article in the Limitation Act, 1963 that is applicable to a suit of the present nature is Article 54. The time stipulated is three years where there is a date fixed for the performance. If on the other hand no date is fixed the time is three years when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The endeavour of Mr. A. Ramanathan, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs was to bring the case on hand within the first part viz., three years from the date fixed for performance. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, time will run only on the defendant evicting the tenants in occupation of the properties and giving notice through registered post to the plaintiffs about the possibility of giving vacant possession, and the plaintiffs are bound to fulfil their obligations under the sale agreements Exs.A1 and A2 from three months after the receipt of such notice. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs wants us to construe this clause in the sale agreements Exs.A1 and A2 as amounting to fixing a date for performance, and compute the time for specific performance on the basis. From the above recitals in Exs.A1 and A2 it is not possible to say that a definite date was fixed for the performance of the contract so that the three years period could be computed therefrom. This part of Article 54 could be invoked only when there is a definite date fixed for performing the contract. It is true that the expression "date fixed" could mean either the date expressly fixed or the date which can be fixed with reference to a future event, which is certain to happen. If on the other hand, the da