SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30th may, 1991 passed by the learned x add!. City civil and sessions judge, Bangalore city in O. S. No. 1877/1980 (original number O. S. 753/1977 ). ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs are the heirs of ramabhadraiah setty. First plaintiff is the adopted son, second plaintiff is the widow and third plaintiff is the daughter. Second defendant is also another daughter of late ramabhadriah setty. The plaintiffs have sought for possession of the suit schedule property. First defendant claims to have been in possession of the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 21-10-1965-ex. P-5. The suit has been filed on 15-10-1977. ( 3 ) BEFORE the trial court one of the major issues contested by the parties was as to whether the relief of specific performance was barred by time? 3. 1. The trial court on considering the evidence on record has held that limitation, under Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, commenced on 28-8-1972 when the first defendant filed O. S. No. 2102/1972 for a permanent injunction against the present plaintiffs 2 and 3; that as the specific performance is sought by way of counter claim made in the written statement filed on 10-7-1978, the relief of specific performance must be deemed to have been sought on 10-7-1978 hence, the relief is barred by time because it is made beyond the period of three years from 28-8-1972. ( 4 ) IN this appeal Sri Shekhara Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the first defendant has advanced the very question of limitation only. According to learned counsel the limitation for seeking specific performance of the agreement in question commenced only on 15-10-1977 when the present suit was filed for possession because till then the plaintiffs cannot be held to have either rescinded the agreement or refused to perform it. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the relief of specific performance sought on 10-7-1978 by way of counter claim made in the written statement filed by the first defendant was barred by time. ( 6 ) THE facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this point are no more in dispute and the same are as follows: ramabhadraiah setty executed an agreement of sale dated 21-10-1965 - ex. ( 6 ) THE facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this point are no more in dispute and the same are as follows: ramabhadraiah setty executed an agreement of sale dated 21-10-1965 - ex. P-5 in favour of the first defendant agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 13,000/- as part payment of the consideration and also put the first defendant in possession of the suit schedule property. A period of one year was fixed for performing the agreement. Ramabhadraiah setty did not execute the sale deed within a period of one year. However, he executed the will - ex. P-4 on 2-6-1969 and died on 3-6-1969. In the will he referred to the agreement - ex. P-5 and stated thus: ram bhat on the point, I have little difficulty in holding the point aforesaid is also not made out. ( 7 ) MR. Ram bhat told me that the vice-president had tendered his resignation in writing to the deputy commissioner which is the methodology to be adopted by the vice-president who desires to submit his resignation. But, when the matter was actually argued it was pointed out to Mr. Ram bhat that the resignation appears to be only oral and counsel had to agree. But, then, granting that the vice-president bad submitted his resignation in writing there being no proof of the resignation having been accepted by the deputy commissioner, it can no longer be urged that the vice-president had shaken off the yoke of office by the date of annexure-b. Mr. Ram bhat tells me that the letter of resignation was addressed to the president of the t. m. c. and not to the deputy commissioner. If that is so, the position becomes thoroughly indefendible (sic) the argument of resignation for under Section 40 a councillor may resign his membership and a president or a vice-president may resign his membership or office as president or vice-president by giving notice in writing to that effect to the deputy commissioner in the case of town municipal council. Therefore in the absence of a notice in writing addressed to the deputy commissioner the resignation, if any, tendered by the vice-president in a different mode is legally ineffective and will not operate to divest him from office. Therefore in the absence of a notice in writing addressed to the deputy commissioner the resignation, if any, tendered by the vice-president in a different mode is legally ineffective and will not operate to divest him from office. It that be the fact situation the argument that the vice-president was disabled from issuing the notice as per Annexure-B is clearly without substance and has to be rejected. ( 8 ) NOW for point No. 1 touching the validity of the meeting notice at annexure-b. It is common ground the notice at Annexure-B was issued by the chief (sic) at the behesi of the vice-president acting under the orders passed by him as per annexure-r6 which reads:"as per endorsement of president dated 4-7-1991 it is observed that the schedule time shown in sub-section 2 of Section 47 call a meeting within fifteen days from the presentation of the councillors. But here the said period is completed on 4-7-1991. Hence the notes placed before the vice-president to take further action as per sub-section (3) of Section 47, k. m. Act, 1964. "it is clear from annexure-r6, on the basis of which the notice at Annexure-B is issued,, that the notice was issued on 6-7-1991 informing all councillors that a special genera] body meeting would be held on 16-7-1991 to consider the notion of no confidence brought forward against the president. Placing reliance on a provision of the Karnataka Municipalities Act under which it is said a metting scheduled to discuss a motion of no confidence against the president or vice-president cannot be held before the expiry of 10 clear days reckoned from the date of the meeting notice, it is urged that the notice dated 6-7-1991 being a notice of the meeting to be held on 16-7-1991 fell short of the 10 days gap since the meeting according to the notice would be held on the 10th day itself. It is, therefore, urged that the meeting scheduled on 16-7-1991 was clearly otiose and hence whatever had been transacted at the meeting would stand totally vitiated. ( 9 ) WITH a view to assist the court in the matter of construing the statute ram bhat invited my attention to a bench decision of this court reported in item No. 60 of short notes contained in KAR. Lj. ( 9 ) WITH a view to assist the court in the matter of construing the statute ram bhat invited my attention to a bench decision of this court reported in item No. 60 of short notes contained in KAR. Lj. 1982 (2) page 29, Janardhana v Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur as also a decision of the Rajasthan high court in Anokhmal v Chief Panchayat officer, 1957 Rajasthan 388. He also placed reliance on a passage in the classic "maxwell on interpretation of statutes. " --- *** --- .