In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff is not required to use any particular language or phraseology to plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and the court should look into the totality of the circumstances and the allegations made in the plaint to determine whether the necessary allegations have been made.

( 1 ) THE appellant-defendant has preferred this second appeal under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 10a of 1972, dated 27-6-1972.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1-Plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Vidisha, against the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, alleging that defendant No. 2, Paras Ram executed an agreement for sale on 5-2-1960 of his agricultural land, survey No. 545/1, named 'bada Gadha', situate in village Aharkotra, District Vidisha, for a consideration of Rs. 550/ -. This amount was paid by him in two instalments, first of Rs. 400/-and second of Rs. 150/ -. This second instalment was paid by him on 21-9-1963, for which he was given a receipt executed by respondent No. 2 Paras Ram. The plaintiff further averred that he was given the possession of the suit land. According to the plaintiff the appellant and the respondent No. 3, with full knowledge of this agreement, purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed from respondent No. 2 on 31-1-1960. Upon this, the appellant and respondent No. 3 ejected him illegally from the suit land and took possession in the month of Asad Samvat 2026. The plaintiff, therefore, filed this suit praying for a decree of specific performance of contract with a direction to execute a valid sale deed in his favour. He further prayed for the ejectment of the appellant and respondent No. 3 from the suit land and restoration of possession to him.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2 denied the facts contained in the plaint but took the stand that the property was a joint Hindu family property, consisting of himself, Madhosingh and Jaswant Singh etc. The respondent No. 2 further averred that he has no independent title over the suit land.

( 4 ) THE suit was decreed in favour of the respondent and aggrieved by it, the appellant and respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal in the District Court, Vidisha. The first appellate Court dismissed their appeal. Appellant, alone, therefore, invoked the provisions of S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 died and he was substituted by his legal representatives and they were brought on record.

( 6 ) SHRI K. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the impugned judgment on various grounds of law. He has characterised Ex. P1, the agreement to sell as void on the ground that no specification of the property, i. e. the Survey number and the area of the land has been given. I anxiously examined the document and found that it contains the name of the land as 'bada Gadha', the name given in the plaint. Merely because it does not contain the survey number or the area, the document cannot be branded as a void agreement. In villages, the lands are known by name rather than by its survey number. This custom of naming a piece of agricultural land seems to be based upon the legendary illiteracy of the country.

( 7 ) THE suit property is a joint family property and Paras Ram respondent No. 2 had no right to sell the land, is not tenable. The appellant has purchased this land from Paras Ram alone on 31-1-1968. However, the concurrent finding of fact is that Paras Ram alone is the proprietor of the suit land.

( 8 ) THE submission of the appellant that the suit was time barred is also without substance. Art. 54 of the New Limitation Act provides that the limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. No date has been fixed in the agreement Ex. P1. Hence this case falls in the second category. The suit land was sold to the appellant by registered sale deed on 31-1-1968. The plaintiff had no notice of this sale from respondent No. 2. This suit was filed on 4-3-1968. Art. 54 of the Limitation Act has been reproduced from Art. 113 of the old Limitatio