JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - This is defendant's appeal. On January 12, 1960, Smt. Zaibun Nisa and her brothers, Mohd. Aarif and Mohammad Khalid, executed a registered deed of sale in respect of the house property described in the plaint in favour of the defendant for consideration of Rs. 500/-. On the same date, there was a separate agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the vendors and also registered whereby the defendant stipulated to reconvey this property to the vendors within five years on payment of Rs. 500/- besides expenses in the execution of the deed. Mohammad Khalid died on August 3, 1965. Plaintiffs 3 to 9 are his heirs. The suit was instituted on July 21, 1969, referring to the aforesaid agreement and alleging also that on December 3, 1964, the defendant agreed in writing that the reconveyance could be had within another five years upon the same terms and conditions. The relief claimed is specific performance of the agreement to reconvey. Mohammad Aarif and Smt. Zaibun Nisa plaintiffs died during the pendency of the suit on January 2, 1970 and November 8, 1970, respectively. Their legal representatives were brought on record. The plaintiffs asserted also that they had been and continue to be ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and that notice had also been given by them to the defendant for purposes of the deed of sale being executed in terms of the agreement to reconvey. 2. In defence it was averred that the defendant incurred more than Rs. 3000/- in making repairs to the house. The agreement to reconvey, it was pleaded, was in favour of the vendors personally and their heirs could not take advantage of the same. Mohd. Aarif, who died on 2-1-1970, it was also said, left a daughter Smt. Choti Bi, who was a national of Pakistan, was not impleaded and the suit was barred by limitation. 3. The trial court found that the agreement of reconveyance was duly executed as claimed by the plaintiffs. It refuted the plea that this was for the personal benefit of the vendors. The defendant could not establish that he had incurred expense in repairs and it was further found that Mohd. Aarif did not leave any such daughter, namely, Smt. Choti Bi, as asserted by the defendant. The suit was decreed as a result on August 16, 1975. It refuted the plea that this was for the personal benefit of the vendors. The defendant could not establish that he had incurred expense in repairs and it was further found that Mohd. Aarif did not leave any such daughter, namely, Smt. Choti Bi, as asserted by the defendant. The suit was decreed as a result on August 16, 1975. In appeal filed by the defendant, the findings of the trial court were affirmed and the appeal dismissed, consequently on May 29, 1976. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant appellant urged that the period stipulated in the registered agreement dated January 12, 1960 (Ex. 1) for reconveyance could not be extended by an unregistered document executed on December, 3, 1964 vide Ex. 2. There is no dispute that on 12-1 -1960 Smt. Zaibun Nisan and her brothers executed a registered deed of sale in defendant's favour in respect of the disputed house and on the same date the defendant agreed under a separate registered agreement to reconvey the property within five years upon repayment of a sum of Rs. 500/-. The execution of the subsequent unregistered agreement dated 3-12-1964, is also not in dispute. The contention, however, is that since the stipulation with regard to reconveyance within five years is contained in a registered instrument, there could be no variation made in the same by a subsequent unregistered deed. This is devoid of force, for the reason that an agreement to reconvey could be entered into without the agreement being registered. The requirement for an agreement to sell being registered was introduced for the first time by U.P. Act 57 of 1976. There was no such requirement under the law when the transaction impugned took place. Consequently, there was no bar in the defendant agreeing afresh to reconvey the property to the vendors within a period of five years commencing say from 3-12-1964 when the subsequent agreement came into being. Even if there could be no variation made in the previous registered agreement dated 12-1-1960, the parties were not prevented on that account from arriving at a fresh agreement stipulating the period within which the reconveyance could be made and this fresh agreement took place before the initial term of five years had expired. Even if there could be no variation made in the previous registered agreement dated 12-1-1960, the parties were not prevented on that account from arriving at a fresh agreement stipulating the period within which the reconveyance could be made and this fresh agreement took place before the initial term of five years had expired. The suit itself was brought on July 21, 1969, i.e., within a period of five years, even if that period be calculated from December 3, 1964, itself the covenant such as in the present runs with the land and the learned counsel rightly does not contend before this Court that this was for the benefit of the vendors personally or that their heirs cannot take advantage of the same. The plea of limitation also fails since the suit was brought, as mentioned above, within a period of five years commencing from December 3, 1964 i.e. to say even before the stipulated term had run out. In view of Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the limitation would be three years commencing from the time fixed for the completion of the sale deed. 5. It was next submitted for the appellant that the plaintiffs have not established that they were ready and willing or continued to be ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The plaintiffs have taken specific plea to this effect in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint. They also referred to notice given on April 13, 1966 and May 7, 1966 (Exs. 3 and 4) under registered cover to the defendant for purposes of the deed of reconveyance being executed. It was argued for the respondents and not without force that the defendant appellant did not raise an issue to the effect that the plaintiffs had not been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. A perusal of the order-sheet maintained by the trial court shows that there was no such issue raised for the defendant-appellant when the issues were drawn by the trial court on May 29, 1973. A specific note is recorded by the trial court to this effect on the order-sheet. In the appeal filed by the defendant also before the lower appellate court there was no such point of contention raised. A specific note is recorded by the trial court to this effect on the order-sheet. In the appeal filed by the defendant also before the lower appellate court there was no such point of contention raised. This being a mixed question of facts and law, the defendant appellant may not be permitted to agitate the same before this Court for the first time in face of the stand earlier taken. The plaintiffs may have been called upon to prove their readiness and willingness averred in the plaint only if the same were traversed and specific issue sought to be raised by the defendant appellant on their own had been framed. 6. Lastly, it was argued for the defendant-appellant that Mohd. Aarif had left one Choti Bi as the daughter, but she has not been impleaded. But the courts below found that Mohd. Aarif did not leave any such daughter and this is a finding on a point of fact. This apart, Mohd. Aarif died subsequent to the institution of the suit. His other legal representatives have admittedly been substituted. They represent the estate of the deceased and, consequently, even if there has been a daughter left out, as the appellant contends, that does not vitiate the decree granted in plaintiff's favour. 7. The appeal, consequently, fails and dismissed. Costs on parties.