The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time for specific performance of a contract starts to run after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement, as per the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

A. S. NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THE legal heirs and successors of the original plaintiff nityananda Sahu in Title Suit No. 163 of 1969 instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8th September, 1988 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 188 of 1974.

( 2 ) THE suit was mainly for specific performance of contract with a prayer to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property In favour of the plaintiff within the date specified by the court and to deliver possession of the same as well as for other ancillary reliefs.

( 3 ) THE suit property is a two-storeyed pucca building having fourteen rooms appeartaining to Khata No. 779 and Khata no. 780 measuring Ac. 0. 201 decimals comprising of plot No. 2816 having Ac. 0. 157 decimals and plot No. 2819 having an area of Ac. 0. 044 decimals, in toto Ac. 0. 201 decimals situated at Mouza Patpur, Chowdhury bazar, P. S. Lalbag, Sub-registry of Cuttack sadar, District -Cuttack. The averments of the plaint revealed that the suit property was the residential building of one Balakrushna Das. Balakrushna expired leaving two sons, namely, rajakrushna and Girish Chandra. Girish chandra unfortunately died leaving behind defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as his legal heirs and successors. Litigation cropped up with regard to the joint family properties including the disputed property between the legal heirs of Balakrushna and the same was carried upto the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal. While the matter was pending in the superme Court, the defendants in order to meet the litigation expenses and other legal necessities, agreed to alienate the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 10,000. 00 and received an advance of Rs. 4,000. 00 towards consideration and an agreement was executed between the parties. It was alleged that the defendants thereafter also received some amounts towards consideration. Even after disposal of the Civil Appeal, the defendants failed to perform their part of contract though the plaintiff was ready and willing, and adopted dilatory tactics on some pretext or other. After serving legal notice, the plaintiff was constrained to file the Title Suit.

( 4 ) ALL the defendants appeared in Court. Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 filed a Joint written statement repudiating the averments made in the plaint and taking a stand that they had never agreed to sell the suit property, but had only borrowed some amount from the plaintiff and had executed certain document under coercion and duress. It was also asserted by the said defendants that the value of the suit property would be more than Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and they could not have executed an agreement to sell the suit property for a paltry sum of Rs. 10,000,00. they also took the plea that the suit was grossly barred by time. Defendant No. 2 filed a separate written statement more or less admitting the plaint allegations and averred that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the other defendants did not co-operate with him and he was unable to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the learned subordinate Judge framed as many as seven issues for deciding the suit. The plaintiff examined six witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. On the other hand, defendant No. 2 examined himself as his witness and on behalf of defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5, four witnesses were examined. The defendants also exhibited eight documents.

( 6 ) AFTER elaborate discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge held that Ext. 2, the money receipt dated 27th Sept. . 1963, was executed by the defendants after fully understanding the covenants thereof and the same was genuine, the handwriting having been proved by the hand-writing expert (P. W. 6 ). It was also found that the defendants had purchas