A contract for the sale of property, executed when the vendor holds an imperfect title, becomes specifically enforceable if the vendor acquires a valid interest in the property subsequently, and the limitation period for such a suit commences upon the vendor's refusal to perform the agreement.

H.R. Panwar, J.

This civil second appeal u/s 100 of CPC (for short ''the Code'' hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh, Headquarter Suratgarh (for short ''the first appellate Court'' hereinafter) whereby the appeal filed by the respondent plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2004 passed by . Civil Judge (Sr, Div.), Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar (for short ''the trial Court'' hereinafter) in Civil Original Case No. 44/2000 was allowed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the this second appeal are that the respondent plaintiff filed a civil suit before the trial Court for specific performance of agreement dated 14.5.1988 by which the appellant defendant agreed to sale agriculture land in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Before the trial Court, the appellant defendant filed his written statement and came with a plea that the document was not for agreement to sale but it was a document mortgaging the land. However, the appellant defendant admitted having received the part payment of consideration mentioned in the document agreement to sale Ex.l. The total amount of sale consideration was Rs. 31,500/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 16,500/- was paid by the respondent plaintiff to the appellant defendant at the time of execution of the document agreement to sale as also the possession of the land, agreed to. be sold, was handed over to the respondent plaintiff. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant defendant that the possession of the land under agreement to sale was handed over to the respondent plaintiff at the time of receiving Rs. 16,500/- from respondent plaintiff and since 14.5.1988 the respondent plaintiff is in possession of the entire land covered by agreement to sale Ex.l. The trial Court framed issues and tried the suit. The plea of limitation was also taken in the written statement and therefore, issue as to whether the suit filed by the respondent ,plaintiff is barred by period of limitation was also framed as Issue No. 7. The Issue No. 7 came to be decided against the appellant defendant. The trial Court instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement Ex.1 dated 14.5.1988 decreed the suit for the payment of Rs. 16,500/- in favour of the respondent plaintiff and against the appellant defendant. The respondent plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court being Appeal No. 4/08 (4/04). By the judgment and decree impugned dated 29.7.2009, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.5.1988 Ex.l and directed the appellant defendant for specific performance of contract i.e. agreement to sale dated 14.5.1988 and to get the document deed of sale executed and registered in favour of respondent plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment and decree in respect of the land Chak 13 S.D. Tehsil Suratgarh Murabba No. 118/396, Kila No. 4 to 6 and 13 to 16 measuring 7 bighas and at the time of getting the document deed of sale registered, the balance amount of consideration shall be paid by the respondent plaintiff to the appellant defendant and the expenses for registration of the deed of sale shall be borne by the respondent plaintiff. If the appellant defendant fails to comply with the directions of the Court, then it will be open for the respondent plaintiff to get the document for deed of sale registered through Court. Hence this appeal.

3. I hav