JUDGMENT 1. :- This civil second appeal has been preferred against judgment & decree dated 24.10.97 passed by Addl. District Judge, Rajgarh Camp at Laxmangarh (Alwar) whereby the first appeal of the appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed while judgment & decree dated 22.12.89 passed by the learned Civil Judge Alwar dismissing the plaintiff's Civil Suit No. 114/82 was confirmed. 2. Brief facts relevant for deciding this appeal are that plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit against defendants before the trial Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.6.69. It was inter-alia pleaded that since the plaintiff and defendants are residents of one and the same village, they have good relations with each others and, therefore, through sale deed dated 27.6.69, the plaintiff sold his khatedari rights of land of different khasra numbers as detailed in the plaint, situated in village Sorai Tehsil Laxmangarh to the defendants for a consideration of Rs. 12,500/- and a sale letter in writing was executed in token thereof with the assurance by the defendants that on receipt of consideration they would hand over possession of the land in question to the plaintiff and would also execute a registered sale deed in affirmation thereof. Thereafter on payment of settled sale price, the defendants executed a sale letter for Rs. 5000/- in favour of Arjunlal brother of the plaintiff regarding Khasra Nos. 76-1 (16, 82-1), (15, 83-0), (7, 85-3) 08 while for rest of the lands of Khasra No. 68-1 (05, 101-2), (07, 102-1), (05, 209-1), (4, 293-10), (13, 460-2), (14, 461-1), (03; present Rakba No. 87, measuring 1 bigha and 5 biswa, 125 measuring 2 bigha 8 biswa, 126 measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa, 435, 1 bigha 13 biswa, 273, 1 bigha 4 biswa, 744, 2 bigha 10 biswa, 775 1 bigha 3 biswa) also executed a sale letter on 1.8.90 (sic ?) in favour of the plaintiff on a stamp paper having been written by one Anandilal deed-writer, stating therein that sum of Rs. 5200/- and Rs. 2300/-, respectively were paid to them in the court by the plaintiff and in token thereof, possession of the land in question was handed over to the plaintiff and ever since then, he has been cultivating the land. 3. 5200/- and Rs. 2300/-, respectively were paid to them in the court by the plaintiff and in token thereof, possession of the land in question was handed over to the plaintiff and ever since then, he has been cultivating the land. 3. Upon the orders of the court, insepction was made by the Receiver who found the land in dispute in possession of the plaintiff, but the sale deed could not be got registered by the defendants on the day when the sale letter was executed in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of understanding that the sale deed would be registered subsequently. However, since the defendants avoided to get the sale deed registered, the plaintiff filed civil suit before the Revenue Court, giving rise to the present appeal. 4. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that though the defendants had promised to sell the land in dispute to him, yet they had deviated from the same by selling it to some one else and consequently the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendants on 23.10.82. Since, the sale deed was not executed by the defendants as promised and ultimately refused on 30.10.82, resulted in filing of the suit. 5. In the written statement in reply to the plaint, the defendants denied their liability to execute any sale deed in absence of receipts of sale consideration from the plaintiff. However, the defendants specifically contended that for the sale deed dated 1.8.70, the dispute for registration thereof was also raised by the plaintiff by filing a suit on 1.6.74 before the Assistant Collector Laxmangarh, who had dismissed the same on 13.7.79 being not maintainable and the plaint was returned as per Order 7 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code with a direction to file the same before the appropriate court. It has also been contended by the defendants that they had on 7.6.74 refused to execute sale deed and denied to have executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff on 1.8.70 or on any subsequent date and in these circumstances, the suit ought to have been filed within three years of cause of action which arose w. e. f. 7.6.74 i.e. the date when they refused to have written any sale letter. Thus, according to the defendants, since the suit was time barred and the plaintiff did not file the agreement to sell with the plaint, the suit was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 6. According to the defendants, in their written statement filed in reply to the plaint, a specific plea was raised that the suit land was purchased for consideration of Rs. 12,500/- through registrered sale deed and in lieu thereof the possession was delivered to the defendant Sukh Lal (since deceased) who is represented through his legal representatives. The defendants further contended that they had never assured the plaintiff either to return possession of the suit land or to get any sale deed executed and registered on the basis of any agreement of sale. Further, the defendants pleaded that they had neither agreed to sell the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 68, 101, 102, 209, 293, 460 and 461 for a consideration of Rs. 5200/- to the plaintiff nor any deed (Agreement to sell) was got executed through Anandilal nor a sum of Its. 2300/- was agreed to be paid before the Sub-Registrar. It has also been specifically contended on their behalf that since there had been dispute between the parties, the suit land was entrusted to the possession of the Receiver appointed by the Revenue Court and the Revenue Appellate Authority delivered its judgment on 30.11.81. 7. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed following issues : HINDI MATTER 358003 8. After recording the evidence led by both the parties and hearing them, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.12.1989 recorded its findings on all the issues against the plaintiff and consequently dismissed the suit holding it time barred and not maintainable. Against the said decision, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court thereby affirming the order/decree of the trial Court as indicated above. Hence, this second appeal. 9. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission and perused the judgments of both the courts below containing concurrent findings, and also examined the legal position in the context of the concurrent findings as recorded by the courts below. 10. The suit was held to be time barred in view of the preliminary Issue No.3. 9. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission and perused the judgments of both the courts below containing concurrent findings, and also examined the legal position in the context of the concurrent findings as recorded by the courts below. 10. The suit was held to be time barred in view of the preliminary Issue No.3. Conclusions drawn by the Courts below are that as per Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation to file suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell is three years from the date of accrual of cause of action and since no agreement in writing was executed between the parties having been proved nor any date was fixed on the basis of any understanding alleged to have been arrived at between them, therefore, in the absence of which, it could not be construed that a time was essence of the agreement. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff had as per his own version contended that the defendant had agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 5200/- at the time of execution of sale deed while rest of Rs. 2300/- was agreed to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration. It is not in dispute that prior to the institution of the suit giving rise to the present appeal, the plaintiff had filed a suit on the same cause of action earlier before the Assistant Collector, Laxmangarh, as is evident from the judgment dated 16.7.82, Ex.A-2, wherein there is a specific mention about sale letter dated 1.8.70 and as to the suit having been strongly opposed by the defendant challenging jurisiction of the Revenue Court and the objection of the defendant was accepted as to its' maintainability and it was directed by the Revenue Court that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff vide its order dated 6.6.79. Hence, from the judgment & order Ex.A-2 of the Revenue Court, it can be inferred, that the plaintiff had due notice with regard to the denial of the defendant's liability to the alleged sale letter on 7.6.74 when the defendant had in his written statement (Ex.A-1) specifically denied to have written any sale letter in question before the Revenue Court and therefore, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period of 3 years had expired on 6.6.77 whereas, the civil suit in question was filed on 2.11.82, which obviously was beyond limitation and hence barred. The aforesaid finding duly arrived at by the trial Court and which was also confirmed by learned Appellate Court, in my considered view, does not warrant any interference in the present second appeal. 11. As regards Issue Nos.1 to 3, it was held that the onus to prove the agreement in question was on the plaintiffibut since he failed to prove any such agreement in writing purported to have been executed on 1.8.70 nor he was able to prove the same by any secondary evidence, hence, in absence of any primary evidence i.e. either the agreement in writing by way of a deed or secondary evidence, it cannot be inferred as to what were the actual terms and conditions as agreed to between the parties. Hence, in such circumstances the suit in question was rightly held to be not maintainable. This finding was rightly affirmed by the First`Appellate Court. Consequently, I am also of the considered opinion that since the matter stands already concluded by well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts below which are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any merit in this appeal which deserves dismissal. In my opinion, the concurrent findings as recorded by the courts below do not give rise to any question of law much less any substantial question of law so as to entertain the present appeal. 12. As a result of the above discussion, this second appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in-limine. The judgment & decree 24.10.97 passed by the Additional District Judge Rajgarh Camp at Laxmangarh (Alwar) and the judgment & decree dated 22.11.89 passed by the Civil Judge, Alwar, are affirmed.Appeal Dismissed. *******