Short Note : 1. According to the plaintiff he was put in possession of the suit lands, which were agreed to be sold by the defendants. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendants avoided the execution of the sale deed and took possession of 10 bighas of land in the month of June-July, 1965. As the defendants failed and neglected to execute the sale deed and restore possession inspite of notice, this suit was filed. 2. The defendants denied all the allegations of the plaintiff and they further pleaded that the suit was barred by time. 3. Except the question of limitation, the other facts were found by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by time. The first appellate Court has affirmed the decree of the trial Court. 4. Held : Shri C.S. Chhajed, learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions in this Court. Firstly he submitted that the learned lower Court was not right in holding that the suit was barred by time because according to him the time will begin to run only in the year 1965, when the notice demanding performance of the contract was refused by the defendants. Shri Chhajed's submission is not well founded. The plaintiff has categorically stated in his evidence that he asked the defendants to perform the contract by executing the sale deed in his favour in Pachor Mela which was held in December, 1962 and that the defendants refused to execute the sale deed. The trial Court relying on this admission of the plaintiff held that the suit filed on 12-2-1966 was clearly barred by time. In view of this there is no substance in the submission of Shri Chhajed that time would run from the year 1965 because once the performance was refused in December, 1962 time had begun to run from that date and the suit filed after three years thereof was barred by the law of limitation. 5. Secondly, Shri Chhajed submitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the lands and he was wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants of 10 bighas of land and therefore a decree for possession thereof ought to have been passed in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Secondly, Shri Chhajed submitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the lands and he was wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants of 10 bighas of land and therefore a decree for possession thereof ought to have been passed in favour of the plaintiff. This submission is also not well founded because this being a suit based on title and admittedly there being no title in favour of the plaintiff a decree for possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff. It would have been a different matter, if the suit was filed within six months of dispossession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. But that being not the case, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in this suit. Appeal dismissed.