Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is a defendant’s appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. which has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 5.4.2012 passed by Smt. Sapna Shukla, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 8, Meerut decreeing Original suit No. 64 of 2006, which has been affirmed by judgment and decree dated 9.4.2013 passed by Sri V.S. Patel, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut by dismissing Civil Appeal No. 125 of 2012, filed by defendant.

2. After hearing appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C., this Court formulated following substantial question of law:

“(I) Whether the suit in question was barred by time or as held by Courts below the time was not essence of the contract and, therefore, the suit filed even after seven years was not barred by limitation.”

3. During course of the argument, I found that construction of clauses 2 and 4 of the agreement is also involved in this matter. It is necessary to find out whether a date or time has been fixed in the agreement for performance of contract so as to attract commencement of period of limitation under Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “L.A. 1963”). Therefore, with the consent of parties, one more substantial question of law which has arisen in this matter, also formulated as under:

“(II) Whether Clauses 2 and 4 of the agreement provides/fixes a date for execution of the sale-deed so as to result in commencement of period of limitation after that date.”

4. I have heard Sri Vatsal Srivastava and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Advocates for appellant and Sri Vipin Kumar, Advocate for respondent on the aforesaid questions of law. However, before giving answer of the same, it would be appropriate to have a brief resume of the relevant facts giving rise to aforesaid issues.

5. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff”) and defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) both are real brothers, being sons of Late Pandit Birakhram Sharma, resident of Kamalpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut. The Original Suit No. 64 of 2006 was instituted by plaintiff, vide plaint dated 14.2.2006, for specific performance by enforcing contract for sale, dated 15.4.1998, for consideration of Rs. 24,000/-, in regard to agricultural plot, Khasra No. 213, area 0.904 hectare with tube well No. PT-3-49 situated at Village Kamalpur, District Meerut and 1/4th part of residential house, detailed at the foot of the plaint. The suit was contested by defendant, vide written statement dated 31.8.2006, on the ground of limitation and bar under Sections 16 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1963”); that the plaintiff was not ready and willing for execution of sale-deed and the contract for sale, even otherwise, is void. He pleaded that he had no intention of either to sell the property or to execute the sale-deed. The defendant Narayan Sharma, in fact, took a plea that he had borrowed some money from plaintiff and the document was executed for satisfaction of plaintiff. There was an understanding between the two that when defendant would return borrowed money, the alleged agreement would be returned to him. Though the defendant returned entire money to the plaintiff, which he borrowed, but neither the plaintiff returned the alleged deed of agreement, nor the defendant, being real brother, demanded the same from the plaintiff, under the belief that the latter will destroy the alleged deed and will never misuse the same. The property in dispute is in possession of the defendant and was never handed over to the plaintiff, since there was no intention of any sale or purchase thereof. Hence, the question of seeking permission did not arise. He also pleaded that the suit is barred by time.

6. The Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “T.C.”) framed seven issues. Issue No. 6 related to limitation. It held that time was not the essence and if one of the par