JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The facts of this case are set out in detail in the judgment of the Divsions Bench, dated 14th Anril 1930, in Civil Anneal No. 14 of 1925, and it is not necessary to repeat them here. Briefly they are, that Ghulam Muhammad, defendant 1, purchased at an auction-sale square No. 70 from Government. Me deposited' the earnest money in the Government Treasury, but had not the means to pay the balance of the purchase price, which was to be paid in instalments. Accordingly on 4th March 1916, Ghulam Muhammad entered into an agreement (Ex. P-1) with Diwan Singh, defendant 2, to sell the square in question to him as soon as the proprietary rights were conferred on him, Diwan Singh undertaking to nay to Ghulam Muhammad the amount which the latter had deposited in the treasury as earnest money and also to pay direct into the treasury the regaining instalments. In pursuance of this agreement, Diwan Singh was put in possession of the land. Diwan Singh paid some of the instalments, but before the entire amount had been paid, he on 18th February 1918, entered into a further agreement with Lekha Slush plaintiff to sell the land to him when ownership was conferred on Ghulam Muhammad in consideration of the plaintiff paying to Diwan Singh ill that he had deposited into the treasury or paid to Ghulam Muhammad and agreemg to deposit the remaining instalments into the treasury.

2. It has been found, and it is common ground between the parties now, that the plaintiff actually paid Rs. 4,428-14-9 in all, either to Diwan Singh personally or into the treasury. All the instalments having been paid, the proprietary rights were transferred by the Government to Ghulam Muhammad on 13th June 1920. On 19th July 1924, Lakha Singh brought the present suit against Ghulam Muhammad and Diwan Singh for specific performance of the contract or, in the alternative for the refund of Rs. 4,428-14-9 which he had paid in cash under the agreement and for Rs. 1,000 as damages, i.e., Rupees 5,428-14-9 in all.

3. The suit was resisted by Ghulam Muhammad alone on numerous grounds, all of which it is not necessary to mention here. The three pleas on which stress has been laid before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant are: (1) that the suit was barred by time; (2) that the agreements (Exs. P-1 and P-2), which the plaintiff seeks to enforce were void under Section 19, Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and (3) that there being no privities of contract between the plaintiff and Ghulam Muhammad, the former could not maintain the suit against the latter.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge has found for the plaintiff on all these points and has passed a decree for specific performance of the contract directing the defendants to execute and register a deed of sale of square No. 70 in favour of the plaintiff. Ghulam Muhammad appeals, and on his behalf his learned Counsel has re-agitated the three points mentioned above before us. With regard to the plea of limitation, it was held in the order of remand that the suit is governed by Article 113, Limitation Act, and as no date for the performance of the contract had been fixed in Ex. P-1 or Ex. P-2, the period of three years is to be calculated from the date when the plaintiff had notice that performance was refused. The question for determination therefore is what is the terminus a quo in the case. The plaintiff alleges that on 17th August 1921, Ghulam Muhammad purchased a stamp paper for Rs. 55 to execute the sale-deed of square No. 70 in his favour and that just when the deed was about to be written, Ghulam Muhammad demanded a further sum by way of blackmail, which the plaintiff declined to pay. The matter was put off for a few days, and eventually Ghulam Muhammad declined to execute the deed. The plaintiff, therefore contends that the refusal was sometime in the third week of August 1921, and that the suit instituted on 19th July 1924, was well within time. Ghulam Muhammad while admitting tha