Honble YADAV, J.–This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 6.2.1981 passed by the learned Additonal District Judge, No.2, Hanumangarh in Original Civil Suit No.49 of 1977 whereby the learned trial court has decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellants. (2). Brief facts relevant for decision of the instant appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance on the ground, inter alia that he entered into an agreement to sell with the defendant-appellants on 23.1.1971 (Ex.1) in respect of Chak No.22 P.T. P.B. total area 3 Bighas 19 Biswas comprising of Killa No.16 area 1 Bigha, Killa No.14 area 1 Bigha, Killa No.15 area 11 Biswas, Killa No.4 area 9 Biswas and Killa No.7 area 19 Biswas for Rs. 18,000/-. It is further averred that in part performance of the Agreement to Sell (Ex.1), possession of `Kotha situated in Killa No.7 of the land in the dispute was given to him. The plaintiff-respondent paid Rs. 14,000/- on 23.1.71 as earnest money. It is also alleged in the plaint that it was also agreed between the parties that Rs. 2000/- shall be paid in Samvat 2028 and rest of the amount shall be paid on 14.2.72 at the time of registration of the sale-deed. There was a clear stipulation in Ex.1 that in event of breach of contract by the defendants, tbey will refund Rs.28,000/- double of the earnest money paid to them and if the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract then the earnest money paid by him shall be forfeited. (3). It is pertinent to mention that in Ex.1, outer limit for execution of sale-deed was fixed between the parties upto 14.2.1972. (4). It is averred in Paragrah 3 of the plaint that on 12.7.71 defendant No.3-Dilip Singh received Rs.1500/- as a consideration on his behalf and on behalf of his two brothers Makhan Singh and Hari Singh. In acknowledgement of payment of the aforesaid amount, a receipt of Rs. 1500/- affixed with his thumb impression in the reverse side of Ex.1 was obtained by the plaintiff- respondent. (5). It is further averred in the plaint that the requisite papers could not be ready, therefore, Makhan Singh on his behalf and on behalf of his other two brothers entered into an agreement on 15.1.72 extending the date of execution of sale-deed upto Samvat 2029. (5). It is further averred in the plaint that the requisite papers could not be ready, therefore, Makhan Singh on his behalf and on behalf of his other two brothers entered into an agreement on 15.1.72 extending the date of execution of sale-deed upto Samvat 2029. Similarly, it is alleged that the date for execution of sale-deed from Samvat 2029 was extended upto Samvat 2030 by an agreement dated 17.1.73 which is alleged to bear the thumb impressions of Dilip Singh and Makhan Singh. Similarly, the plaintiff-respondent also alleged that by an agreement dated 16.1.74 the date for execution of sale-deed was further extended from 17.1.73 to 16.1.74. It is also alleged that agreement dated 16.1.74 Ex.2 did bear the thumb impressions of the defendant- appellants. (6). It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but due to increase in prices of agricultural land, the defendant- appellants are not willing to perform their part of contract which necessitated him to file the suit for specific performance and in the alternative to refund Rs.15,550/- paid as earnest money to the defendant-appellants plus Rs. 2500/- as damages, total Rs. 18000/-. (7). The defendant-appellants filed a joint written statement denying emphatically the averments made in the plaint. It is averred that they had not executed any agreement for sale in respect of the land in question to the plaintiff-respondent nor they received any earnest money from him. The agreements alleged in the plaint are forged and had been fabricated to grab their agricultural land. (8). It is also averred by defendant-appellants in their written statement that these agreements to sell do not bear their thumb impressions. It is made clear in the written statement filed by the defendant-appellants that one Lal Khan violently invaded their possession over Killa No.7 over which a Kotha is in existence and dispossessed them forceably against whom the defendant-appellants had filed a suit for eviction in the revenue court. The defendant-appellants do not know plaintiff Lalu Ram who has been set up by Lal Khan to grab their agricultural land in question.It is averred in the written statement that the present suit has been filed by plaintiff at the behest of Lal Khan who is a rich man of the locality and is in habit of harassing poor agriculturists of the village. It is specifically averred in the written statement by defendant-appellants that Lal Khan has fabricated and forged these agreements in favour of plaintiff Laluram. It is further averred by defendant-appellants that Lalkhan and his associates be prosecuted for forging and fabricating these agreements to sell in favour of Laluram to grab their agricultural land in question. (9). On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 6 issues, focussing the attention of the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. (10). The plaintiff examined Shiv Shankar Notary Advocate as PW 1, plaintiff Lalu Ram got himself examined as PW 2, Kashi Ram as PW 3, Dayal Chand as PW 4, and Nihal Chand as PW 5, who alleged himself to be scribe of these agreements to sell in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff-respondent also filed agreement to sell dated 23.1.71 which is marked as Ex.1, agreement to sell dated 16.1.74 as Ex.2, the endorsement made by one of the defendant Dilip Singh on reverse page of Ex.1, in acknowledgement of receipt of Rs. 1500/-. The agreement to sell dated 15.1.72 and agreement dated 17.1.73 have also been brought on record to show that time for execution of sale deed was extended time to time but these agreements to sell have not been exhibited. The plaintiff-appellants also filed one receipt which is also exhibited as Ex.2 (although it ought to have been exhibited as Ex.3). (11). In rebuttal, the defendant-appellants examined Hari Singh as DW 1, Dilip Singh as DW 2 and Makhan Singh as DW 3. They did not adduce any documentary evidence in support of their claim. (12). The learned trial court believed the statements of PW 1 to PW 5 and Ex.1 and Ex.2. After placing reliance on the aforesaid agreement Ex.1 and Ex.2 as well as on agreement dated 15.1.72 and agreement dated 17.1.73 which had not been exhibited, decreed the suit for specific performance. It is held by the learned trial court that suit was filed within limitation. (13). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment given by learned trial court. (14). It is held by the learned trial court that suit was filed within limitation. (13). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment given by learned trial court. (14). To my mind, in the instant appeal, following points for determination are involved :- A. WHETHER in a suit for specific performance, the genuineness of the execution of agreement to sell is to be proved by the plaintiff as alleged in his plaint? B. WHETHER neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can be allowed to travel beyond their pleadings ? C. WHETHER if a particular act is required to be performed in a particular manner under any enactment or rules then it would be presumed that its performance by any other manner has been prohibited by such enactement or rules ? D. WHETHER the so called agreement dated 15.1.72 and so called agreement dated 17.1.73 alleged to have been entered into between plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellants, extending the limitation are admissible in evidence as contemplated under Sec.35 of the Indians Stamp Act read with Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adoption) Act 1952 ? E. WHETHER the present suit for specific performance was filed within limitation ? F. WHETHER the plaintiff-respondent was given possession over the disputed land in part performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.1.71 Ex.1 ? (15). POINTS NO. A TO D Points for determination No.A to D are inter-linked with each other, therefore, it would be expedient to discuss these points together:- (16). It must be taken to be well settled universal rule in all civil cases that he who makes an allegation in his plaint must prove it. The aim of proving contents of documents are contemplated under Section 61 to 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas, mode of proving genuineness of documents are provided under Sections 45, 47, 67 to 73 of the same Act. Similarly the provisions relating to burden of proof are dealt with from Section 101 of Section 114(A) of the Evidence Act under Chapter VII of Part III of the said Act. (17). Similarly the provisions relating to burden of proof are dealt with from Section 101 of Section 114(A) of the Evidence Act under Chapter VII of Part III of the said Act. (17). Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of hand writing of finger impressions the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art or in questions as to identity of hand writting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Under Sec. 45, the persons who possessed skilled knowledge on the aforesaid subject are called experts. Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act further envisages that when the court has to form an opinion and as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. In the aforesaid Section, according to explanation added to it, a person is said to be acquainted with the hand-writing of another person when he has seen that person writing or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person or when in the ordinary course of business documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. (18). Section 67 of the aforesaid act provides that if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by person the signature or the hand writing of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that persons hand writing must be proved to be in his handwriting. Section 68 of the said act speaks about principle of execution of document required by law to be attested whereas Section 69 makes exception. Section 70 provides for admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself. Such admission about its execution shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it may be a document required by law to be attested. Section 70 provides for admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself. Such admission about its execution shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it may be a document required by law to be attested. Section 71 of the said Act provides that if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document its execution may be proved by other evidence. Section 73 of the said Act provides that in order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signautre, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. (19). A conjoined reading of the aforesaid Sections would reveal that signatures or thumb impressions on documents can be proved by such persons before whom signatures or thumb impressions are made. Such witnesses are called attesting witnesses. Another mode to prove signatures or thumb impressions or other impressions of like nature under the aforesaid Sections is through communi- cation by a person when another person has received communication purported to be written by that person in answer to documents in the ordinary course of business habitually. (20). The aforesaid kind of oral evidence can be classified as non-expert evidence to establish the signature or thumb impression on a document produced in evidence. It is true that this kind of non-expert oral evidence is better in comparision to expert evidence provided the person or persons deposing to prove genuineness of the signature or thumb impression are above bias and suspicion. I am of the view that the strength of such oral evidence varies with the degree of the persons impartiality deposing before a court of law about the genuineness of signa- tures or thumb impressions of a person or persons on documents especially when the execution of the document and signatures or thumb impressions made by its alleged makers are denied and asserted to be forged. To my mind, in such cases expert evidence is the only surest way to ascertain the truth about the signatures or thumb impression of a person or persons on a document produced for evidence before a Court. (21). In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law, the testimonial value of witnesses examined by the plaintiff- respondent in the present case proving the thumb impressions of the defendant-appellants on the agreements in question, cannot be said to be above bias and suspicion for the reasons discussed hereinbe- low. (22). Let us begin with initial alleged agreement Ex.1 dated 23.1.71 alleged to have been executed by the defendant-appellants and also alleged to bear their thumb impressions. To prove the aforesaid agreement Ex.1, the plaintiff has examined PW 1 Shiv Shanker, Notary Advocate, himself as PW 2, one attesting witness namely Dayal Chand as PW 4 and Nihal Chand scribe as PW 5. (23). As regards testimonial value of PW 1 Shiv Shanker is concerned, he has not supported the plaintiffs case. He denied his own signature on Ex.1 by giving his opinion that the signature and seal on Ex.1 are similar to his signature and seal. He was declared hostile by plaintiff himself and was put to searching cross exami- nation. It is apparent from his deposition that although he was closely associated in committing forgery with plaintiff Lal Khan along with PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 but before court he could not be able to muster courage to support this forged agreement Ex.1. Suffice it to say in this regard that opinion of a witness is inadmissible. It is true that the fate of Ex.1 does not depend on the mercy of PW 1 but it is equally true that PW 1 is not a truthful witness. It will be discussed hereinbelow that PW 1 is a witness who entered into a conspiracy to forge Ex.1 at the behest of Lal Khan, PW 2 Lalu Ram PW 4 and PW 5 to grab the agricultural land of the defendant-appellants for Lal Khan. (24). It would be sufficient to state here that PW 1 was gazatted officer within the meaning of the Notaries Act 1952 and he was authorised to verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument including Ex.1 under Sec.8 of the Notaries Act 1952 read with Rules framed thereunder. (24). It would be sufficient to state here that PW 1 was gazatted officer within the meaning of the Notaries Act 1952 and he was authorised to verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument including Ex.1 under Sec.8 of the Notaries Act 1952 read with Rules framed thereunder. Rule 11 of the Notary Rules 1956 specifically provides that each notary before bringing the notary register into use is required to give a certificate on the title page and specified the number of pages which such register contains. Such certificates shall be signed and dated by the notary. Such register maintained by notary are subject to periodical inspection by the District Judge or such officers as appropriate Government from time to time appointed in this behalf, under Rule 14 of the said Rules PW 1, notary Officer was required to submit returns in the first week of January every year to the proper Government in form No.14 of the Notaries Rules about all works done by him during the preceding years. To my mind, the aforesaid Rules are meant to check and control the abuse of power by a notary officer. (25). In the present case it was the duty of the plaintiff to examine PW 1, with his register and the return submitted by him to ensure as to whether Ex.1 was authenticated and certified by PW 1 notary advocate and were entered in his register. The plaintiff-respondent deliberately avoided to examine PW 1 with his register and return submitted by him. In view of aforesaid facts an adverse inference is to be drawn against the plaintiff- respondent to the effect that if register maintained by PW 1 and return submitted by him would have been produced before the court then it would have been unfavourable to the plaintiff. The aforesaid conduct of the plaintiff further lead me to believe that PW 1 was a close associate of Lal Khan, PW 2, PW 4, and PW 5 in fabricating Ex.1 to grab the land of the defendant appellants and the plaintiff-respondent Lalu Ram working as a conduit of Lal Khan in their act of forgery. (26). Plaintiff also examined PW 5 Nihal Chand deed writer to prove genuineness of Ex.1, agreement dated 23.1.71. PW 5 scribe of the agreement dated 23.1.71 Ex.1 has clearly admitted that he is a licensed deed writer. (26). Plaintiff also examined PW 5 Nihal Chand deed writer to prove genuineness of Ex.1, agreement dated 23.1.71. PW 5 scribe of the agreement dated 23.1.71 Ex.1 has clearly admitted that he is a licensed deed writer. It is to be noticed that for controlling the acts of fabricating deeds by licensed document writers, the State of Rajasthan has framed rules popularly known as Rajasthan Registration (Licensing of Document Writers) Rules 1956 published in Rajasthan Gazatte Par IV(c) dated 14.7.56 Page 280. (27). It is to be noticed that under rule 8 of the said Rules it is clearly provided that every licensed document writer shall sign the document, application or other paper drawn by him, with the date of drawing it up and shall enter below his signature the fees charged by him for drawing it up, the number which the document, application or paper bears in the register maintained under Rule 9 of these Rules shall also be entered thereon. Rule 9 of the aforesaid rules further provides that every licensed document writer shall maintain a register of documents, applications and papers drawn up by him and shall enter therein the name of the person for whom the document, application or paper was written, nature of the document, application, or paper, details regarding the immovable property if any which is subject matter of the document, date of writing the document and Fees charged is to be written in deed clearly to prove its genuineness. (28). A close scrutiny of Ex.1, agreement dated 23.1.71 upon which the plaintiff placed reliance reveals that PW 5, Nehal Chand has neither written the fees charged by him nor he has disclosed the number which the document Ex.1 bears in the register maintained by him under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Registration (Licensing of Document Writers) Rules 1956. It is pertinent to mention that entries made in the register under rule 9 are required to be numbered serially and are subject to inspection by District Registrar or Sub-registrar concerned and also by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration appointed by the Government of Rajasthan for the area. To my mind, the object of rules are to check fabrication of documents by licensed-deed writers. (29). To my mind, the object of rules are to check fabrication of documents by licensed-deed writers. (29). The aforesaid discussion lead towards an irresistible conclusion that PW 1, Notary advocate as well as PW 5 Nihal Chand deed writer both have not performed their duties in preparing Ex.1 in accordance with law. Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the statement of PW 1 and PW 5 cannot said to be free from bias and suspicion. PW 5, Nehal Chand was required to write on Ex.1 giving its number entered by him in the register maintained under Rule 9. A close scrutiny of Ex.1 reveals that PW 5 Nehal Chand has neither entered below his signature, the fees charges by him while drawing up Ex.1, nor he has written the number which Ex.1 bears in the register maintained by him under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules 1956. I am of the view that Lal Khan in collusion with PW 1, 2, 4 and 5 has forged ante dated Ex.1 to grab the land of the defendant-appellants. (30). It is to be noticed further that in the present case PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 have no regard for truth and they have committed forgery even after filing of the suit for specific performance. It is to be noticed that in the plaint nowhere it is averred that agreement Ex.1 dated 23.1.71 has been verified and authenticated on a subsequent date by a notary Advocate but after filing of the plaint ante dated auth- entication was done by PW 1 at the behest of Lal Khan PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 to give a true colour to the fabricated agreement dated 23.1.71 Ex.1 to grab the land of the defendant-appellants. (31). It is evident from Ex.1, agreement dated 23.1.71 that the agreement was required to be performed by the parties upto 14th February 1972 but it is alleged that the time fixed for specific performance upto 14th February 1972 was extended by agreement dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73. A close scrutiny of agreements dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73 which are not exhibited reveal that these two agreements are written on ordinary paper not on stamp paper by PW 5 as required under the Indian Stamp Act read with Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act 1952. A close scrutiny of agreements dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73 which are not exhibited reveal that these two agreements are written on ordinary paper not on stamp paper by PW 5 as required under the Indian Stamp Act read with Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act 1952. Under Article 5(c) of Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act 1952 it is clearly provided that all agreements or memorandum of an agreement which are not covered under Article 5(a) and (b) those agreements are required to be written on a stamp paper of Rs.1, from the date of enforcement of the Act upto 8.3.76. From 9.3.76 stamp duty was increased from Rs.1 to Rs.1.50 and similarly stamp duty was further enhanced from 30.3.77 from Rs.1.50 to Rs.2 whereas w.e.f. 1987, it has been enhanced to Rs.5. On the relevant date when the agreement dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73 are alleged to have been executed these agreements were required to be written on stamp paper of Rs.1, under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act 1952, as these two agreements dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73, extending the date fixed for specific performance upto 14.2.72 under Ex.1 are not executed on stamp paper of Rs.1 therefore these agreements are not admissible in evidence as envisaged under Sec.35 of the Indian Stamp Act applicable to Rajasthan. However there are few exceptions enumerated under the proviso to Section 35 wherein it is provided that any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable (with a duty not exceeding ten anya paise) subject to exceptions be admitted in evidence on payment of duty with which the same is chargeable or in the case of instrument insufficiently stamped is required to make up such duty together with a penalty of Rs.5, or when ten times the amount of the property duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees a sum of equal to ten times of such duty. (32). It is evident that although agreements dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73 are not written on stamp papers but neither these two agreements were impounded nor stamp duty and penalty had been paid yet reliance has been placed by learned trial court on these inadmissible evidence. (32). It is evident that although agreements dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73 are not written on stamp papers but neither these two agreements were impounded nor stamp duty and penalty had been paid yet reliance has been placed by learned trial court on these inadmissible evidence. I am of the view that these agreements dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73 extending the date fixed for specific performance are not add- missible in evidence and the learned trial court has erred in placing reliance upon these two agreements in extending the limitation for performance of contract Ex.1. (33). In view of the aforesaid discussion all these agreements to sell dated 15.1.72, 17.1.73 and 16.1.74 are held to be forged, fake and bogus for the same reasons as assigned to agreement dated 23.1.71 Ex.1. (34). From the aforesaid discussion made in the preceding paragraph of the judgment it is held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish the genuineness of the agreements to sell as alleged by him in his plaint from the statement of PW 1 to PW 5. Infact, it was the duty of the plaintiff in the first instance to satisfy the court that the thumb impressions on Ex.1 and agreements dated 15.1.72, 17.1.73 and 16.1.74 Ex.2 did bear the thumb impressions of the defendant-appellants. I am also of the view that where a suit for specific performance is filed and the defendants deny execution of the agreement and also deny their signatures or their thumb impressions then onus of proving that the document has been duly executed by the defendants and it bears the signatures or thumb impressions of defendants lies upon the plaintiff as envisaged under Section 101 to 104 of the Indian Evidence Act. (35). The learned trial court in the present case, has erred in holding that burden of rpoof lies on the defendant-appellants to call an expert to support their contention that these agreements do not bear their thumb impressions. I have no hesitation in holding that it was boundened duty of the plaintiff-respondent to have examined an expert to establish that all these agreements i.e. dated 23.1.71 Ex.1, 15.1.72, 17.1.73 and 16.1.74 Ex.2 had been executed by defendant-appellants and these agreements to sell did bear their thumb impressions. I have no hesitation in holding that it was boundened duty of the plaintiff-respondent to have examined an expert to establish that all these agreements i.e. dated 23.1.71 Ex.1, 15.1.72, 17.1.73 and 16.1.74 Ex.2 had been executed by defendant-appellants and these agreements to sell did bear their thumb impressions. Since plaintiff respon- dent deliberately avoided to examine an exper to prove the thumb impressions of the defendant-appellant, therefore, it would be proper to draw adverse inference against him to the effect that if he would have produced an expert then experts opinion would have gone against him. (36). The plaintiff-respondent has examined PW 1 Shiv Kumar, notary advoca- te, PW 4, Dayal Chand, attesting witness and PW 5 Nihal Chand scribe to prove the execution and thumb impressions of the defendant-appellants on agreement dated 23.1.71 Ex.1 whereas all other agreements dated 15.2.72, 17.1.73 and 16.1.74 extending limitation are purpoted to be proved by PW 4 and PW 5 who are observed by learned trial court to be real brothers. On Ex.1 agreement, the thumb impression of the appellants are not decipherable. The scribe of Ex.1 PW 5 is a man of such vast experience that he would have not left any possibility of leaving the thumb impressions of all the defendant-appellants undecipherable or blurred while pad-ink was available to him at the time when Ex.1 was drawn up by him. To my mind, in such a situation, even expert opinion is not possible. PW 1 Notary Advocate has been declared hostile by the plaintiff-respondent himself. (37). A close scrutiny of agreement Ex.1 dated 23.1.71 reveal that it was prepared by scribe PW 5 Nihal Chand in two instalments. In first instalment, entire agreement Ex.1 was written by PW 5 but the places where the name of plaintiff- respondent Lalu Ram his fathers name Ilda Ram, his caste Chamar and his reside- nce Bikaner are written were left blank by him. Although the writing of the aforesaid descriptions are same but ink is different. The aforesaid fact is visible even from naked eyes which lead me to believe that Ex.1 agreement is forged agreement and it does not bear the thumb impressions of defendant-appellants. Although the writing of the aforesaid descriptions are same but ink is different. The aforesaid fact is visible even from naked eyes which lead me to believe that Ex.1 agreement is forged agreement and it does not bear the thumb impressions of defendant-appellants. After fabricating the agreement Ex.1 as averred in the written statement, Lal Khan was in search of a suitable person and he got the plaintiff-respondent name filled in the agreement Ex.1 as he was member of Scheduled Caste. Reason for doing so is not far to seek as the defendant- appellants are members of Scheduled Caste and there is prohibition under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for transfer by Scheduled Caste in favour of any other person except members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Evi- dence on record clearly establishes without any iota of doubt that the story set up by the plaintiff-respondent regarding execution of agreement to sell and payment of sum of Rs. 14,000/- is a concocted story to grab te land of defendant-appellants. The learned trial court failed to examine apparent infirmities in Ex.1 and other agreements mentioned above, extending limitation for performance of contract. (38). As regards agreements dated 15.2.72, 17.1.73 and 16.1.74 Ex.2 are concerned all these agreements are written by PW 5 Nihal Chand licensed deed writer and always attested by his brother PW 4 Dayal Chand. These two witnesses are biased and their statements do not inspire my confidence for proving the genuineness of these agreements and thumb impressions of defendant-appellants. The ag- reement dated 15.1.72 admittedly did not bear the thumb impressions of Hari Singh appellant. More so, as held in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, these agreements dated 15.1.72 and 17.1.73 are not admissible in evidence. the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove agreement dated 16.1.74 in accordance with law. PW 4 and PW 5 examined to prove the aforesaid agreements and thumb impressions of defendant-appellants are not reliable witnesses. PW 5 being licensed deed writer has no justification whatsoever to draw up Ex.2 without following the mandatory provisions contemplated under the Rajasthan Registration (Licensing Document Writers) Rules, 1956 discussed above. (39). PW 4 and PW 5 examined to prove the aforesaid agreements and thumb impressions of defendant-appellants are not reliable witnesses. PW 5 being licensed deed writer has no justification whatsoever to draw up Ex.2 without following the mandatory provisions contemplated under the Rajasthan Registration (Licensing Document Writers) Rules, 1956 discussed above. (39). From the conducts of PW 1 Shiv Shanker Notary Advocate, PW 2 Lalu Ram, PW 4 Dayal Chand attesting witness and PW 5 Nihal Chand, the scribe, it could not be ruled out that they have been heavily paid by Lal Khan so as to avail of their services for filling in all the gaps for proving the plaint case to grab the agricultural land of the defendant-appellants who are economically, socially and educationally in disadvantaged position. (40). In view of aforesaid discussion, my answer to points for determination No.A, B and C are in affirmative whereas point No.D is answered in negative. (41). POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. E.–It goes without saying that if a suit for specific performance is instituted after more than three years it is barred by limitation as provided under Article 54 of the Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act. The limitation begins to run from the date fixed for the performance or if no date is fixed when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused unless the parties by an agreement extend the fixed time. For ready reference, the provision of Article 54 is reproduced hereinbelow :- Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period beings to run. For specific performance of a contract. Three years The date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. (42). It is evident in the present case from Ex.1 that there was a date fixed in the agreement for the performance of the contract upto 14.2.72, whereas the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 19.10.76 and was registered on 20.10.76. It is to be noticed that under first part of Article 54, once date for performance of the contract has been fixed by the parties, the limitation begins to run from that date unless the parties by an agreement extend the fixed time. It is to be noticed that under first part of Article 54, once date for performance of the contract has been fixed by the parties, the limitation begins to run from that date unless the parties by an agreement extend the fixed time. It has already been held in the preceding paragraphs that the agreement dated 15.1.72 extending the period of limitation for specific performance from Samvat 2028 to 2029 is fake, bogus and not admissible in evidence. Similarly, another agreement dated 17.1.73 extending the date for specific performance of contract from Samvat 2029 to 2030 is also fake, bogus, fabricated and not admissible in evidence. The plaintiff- respondent miser- ably failed to prove execution and thumb impressions of the defendant-appellants on agreement dated 16.1.74 Ex.2 extending the fixed period for performance of the contract Ex.1. Therefore, in accordance with Ex.1 dated 23.1.71, the plaintiff was required to file the present suit within three years from 14.2.72 i.e. upto 14.2.75 whereas the present suit was filed on 19.10.76 which is barred by limitation. (43). It is true that the expression ``date fixed used under Article 54 also includes where time under the contract is extended by subsequent agreements but after close scrutiny of the agreement Ex.1, agreement dated 15.1.72, agreement dated 17.1.73 and agreement dated 17.1.74 Ex.2 reveal that these agreements are fabricated agreements and the plaintiff has failed to establish that these agreements have been executed by the defendant- appellants and also bear their thumb impression, therefore, the possibility of extending the period of limitation is ruled out. As held in the preceding paragraphs, the plaintiff was required to file the present suit within three years from the date fixed for performance of contract i.e. on 14.2.72. In the present case, three years limitation will begin to run from 14.2.72 and as such the plaintiff was required to file the present suit upto 14.2.75 whereas the present suit was filed by him on 19.10.76 and was registered on 20.10.76. Thus, the present suit was barred by limitation and a finding contrary to it recorded by the learned trial court is perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law. (44). Thus, the present suit was barred by limitation and a finding contrary to it recorded by the learned trial court is perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law. (44). POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO.F :- The learned trial court has arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has been given possession over the disputed land in part performance of the contract to sell dated 23.1.71 Ex.1 as there is recital in the said agreement. As it has been held in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment that agreement Ex.1 is bogus and forged document and it was never executed by the defendant-appellants and nor it bears the thumb impressions of the defendant-appellants, therefore, question of part performance on the basis of recital in Ex.1 does not arise. PW 3 Kashi Ram has been examined by the plaintiff-respondent to prove his possession over the disputed land but his statement is full of material contradictions. It is admitted by him in his deposition that over the land in dispute, receiver has been appointed. It is also stated by him that being Patwari he will start to enter the possession of receiver after the direction from revenue authorities. The aforesaid statements of PW 3 is sufficient to disbelieve him. According to his own statement, he is not recording possession in Khasra according to actual possession on the spot but on his own whim and fancy. According to him, he would start recor- ding possession of receiver only after getting instructions from revenue authorities. It is surprising to note that he did not appear with extract of Khasra 1975. He has proved irrigation slip issued by his predecessor Patwari which is not proof of possession unless accompanied with actual payment of irrigation dues. PW 2 Lalu Ram plaintiff is participating in the suit as a conduit of Lal Khan. He is resident of another District Bikaner. His name was added in Ex.1 subsequently by PW 5 scribe of Ex.1 at the behest of Lal Khan. His statement regarding his possession over Kotha in Killa No.7 in part performance of agreement Ex.1 does not inspire my confidence. (45). In view of the aforesaid discussion I answer point No.(F) in negative. (46). His name was added in Ex.1 subsequently by PW 5 scribe of Ex.1 at the behest of Lal Khan. His statement regarding his possession over Kotha in Killa No.7 in part performance of agreement Ex.1 does not inspire my confidence. (45). In view of the aforesaid discussion I answer point No.(F) in negative. (46). It is pertinent to mention that the court has been informed that PW 1 Shiv Shankar Notary Advocate has already expired, the other PWs namely Lalu Ram (PW 2) is suffering from paralysis, Kashi Ram (PW 3), Dayal Chand (PW 4) and Nihal Chand (PW 5) are also on fag end of their lives. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served to launch criminal proceedings against them for forging agreements discussed above and giving false evidence in a judicial proceedings, after long interval of more than 21 years. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court is set aside and instant appeal is allowed with costs. The suit filed by plaintiff-respondent seeking relief for specific performance and other ancillary reliefs is hereby dismissed.