The court upheld the dismissal of a specific performance suit due to lack of precise property description and finding it time-barred.

1. By this second appeal filed under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short 'CPC'), the appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 19-4-1991 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, in Civil Appeal No. 14A / 85, affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal of civil suit passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class - II, Ambikapur, in Civil Suit No. 97A / 79 dated 29-3-82.

2. The present appeal has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law;
(1) Whether the finding of the first appellate Court with respect to the disputed land is perverse?
(2) Whether the suit is within time?

3. As per allegation made in the plaint, original defendant No. 1 Narayan Ram entered into agreement for sale of his land bearing khasra No. 1442 area 0.07 acres situated at Ambikapur with plaintiffs Surendra Kumar Gupta, Virendra Kumar Gupta and Baijnath Prasad Gupta. His mother Indiya Devi also co - operated in execution of such agreement. Out of sale amount of Rs. 1400/-, Rs. 421/- was paid to Narayan Ram at the time of execution of the agreement. Possession was immediately delivered by Narayan Ram to the plaintiffs. Narayan Ram further received Rs. 783/- installments and executed the receipt from the back of said agreement. After October, 1971, Narayan Ram and his mother Indiya Devi left Ambikapur, their address was not known to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, mother of Narayan Ram, Indiya Devi died. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know that Narayan Ram was residing at Bhopal. The plaintiffs contracted with Narayan Ram at Bhopal and requested for execution of sale deed but Narayan Ram denied the performance of his part of contract. On 16-1-1979 Narayan Ram tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. On that day, they have informed that Narayan Ram has sold the land to other defendant Gendaram. In these circumstances, suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs along with claim of permanent injunction. By filing written statements, original respondents / defendants have denied the adverse allegation made in the plaint and have alleged that Narayan Ram has not entered into agreement for sale of his land to the plaintiffs. Original defendant No. 2 Gendaram has purchased the land from Narayan Ram and Gendaram is a bona fide purchaser.

4. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 2nd Civil Judge Class - II, Ambikapur has dismissed the civil suit by holding that possession was never delivered to the plaintiffs, suit is time barred and Gendaram is a bona fide purchaser. Same was challenged before the lower appellate Court and by the judgment and decree impugned, learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

5. During pendency of second appeal, Surendra Prasad Gupta and Baijnath Prasad Gupta died. Name of Surendra Prasad Gupta has been deleted and legal representative of Baijnath Prasad Gupta has been brought on record. Likewise, respondents Narayan Ram and Gendaram also died and their legal representatives have also been brought on record.

6. I have heard B.P. Sharma with Mr. A. K. Prasad, counsel for the appellants, Mr. Neeraj Mehta, counsel for respondent No. 1 (a) to