JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the courts below has filed the present second appeal.

2. The minimum facts that are required for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows:

The appellant entered into a sale agreement dated 16.11.1987 with the respondent for purchase of the suit property. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.2,30,000/-, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- was paid towards advance on 03.12.1987. The appellant also subsequently paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. As per the terms of the contract, the transaction should be completed within six months and though the appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the respondent failed to execute the sale deed. However, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 20.09.1997 calling upon the appellant to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his favour. The appellant, on receipt of the said notice, issued a reply notice dated 13.10.1997 to the respondent. The respondent also filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property in O.S.No.95 of 1998. Since the respondent failed to perform his part of the contract and execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, the appellant filed the suit for specific performance before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

4. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, rejected the plaint vide his order dated 30.08.2000 by observing that since the suit is filed after a lapse of nearly 15 years, it is barred by limitation.

5. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S. No.87 of 2004 before the Additional District Court, Coimbatore. The learned Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant vide his decree and judgment dated 04.08.2006 on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

6. Now the present second appeal is filed by the appellant on the following substantial questions of law :

i. Whether the courts below are right in rejecting the plaint even at the threshold on the ground of limitation when the conduct of the respondent/defendant would clearly reflect acquiescence and novation of the agreement of sale itself.

ii. Whether the courts below are right in applying the first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act when on facts it is only the second limb that would apply.

iii.Whether the courts below are right in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation when the same is a mixed question of law and fact and can be established through evidence.

7. Heard Mr. S. Mukunth, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.T. Doraisamy, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The contention of the appellant is that he entered into a sale agreement on 16.11.1987 and paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. Though it was averred in the plaint that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, he did not take any steps to get the sale deed executed in his favour as is seen from the pleadings in the plaint. Only the respondent had issued a notice on 20.09.1997 and thereafter the appellant filed a suit in C.F.R. (O.S.) No.20031 of 2000 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The period of limitation for filing the suit for specific performance as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act is three years and the period commences from the date fixed in the contract or, if no date is fixed, from the date of notice of refusal to perform. In the instance case, the time for completion of the contract is mentioned as six months. Though it is settled law that time is not the essence of contract as far as the immovable properties are concerned, the appellant did not take steps to complete his part of the contract and after a lapse of 13 years, he filed the suit for specific performance of the contract and that too, after issuance of notice by the respondent on 20.09.1997. It is appropriate to extract the judgment of the