Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J.-Admittedly, on 12.12.1972 Ram Sewak Sah executed a registered sale deed, Ext. A in favour of Maheshwar Mishra in respect of 2.64 acres land for consideration of Rs. 700/-. 2. Simultaneously on the same date Maheshwar Mishra executed a registered agreement for sale, Ext. 1 in favour of Ram Sewak Sah in respect of aforesaid land with reference to the aforesaid sale deed, Ext. A to recovery the same on receiving consideration amount of Rs. 700/- within five years. 3. On 8.7.1980 sons of late Ram Sewak Sah filed Title Suit No. 4 of 1980 against Maheshwar Mishra for specific performance of agreement for sale on the basis of Ext. 1. 4. Accordingly to plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 900/- was already paid in five instalments in between 11.6.1974 and 5.10.1976 and further a sum of Rs. 341/- was paid 0'1 8.7.1978. Hence, more than aforesaid consideration amount was paid within the stipulated period, but the sale deed was not executed by the defendant. 5. On 26.8.1978 a notice was sent to the defendant for execution and registration of sale deed and was properly served on him. In the meantime, Ram Sewak Sah died. Plaintiffs were always ready to perform their part of agreement. 6. Defendant contested the suit on the ground that time fixed under the agreement, Ext. 1 was essence of the contract but consideration amount of Rs. 700/- was not tendered to him within the said period. Consequently, the agreement became void and incapable of being enforced. 7. The defendant also contended that late Ram Sewak Sah had been taking some amount by way of 'Hathpaicha' from him and in this regard he might have given any slip to him acknowledging payment of money. He denied receipt of Rs. 900/- in different instalments as well as receipt of Rs. 341/- by way of interest on the aforesaid amount of consideration. 8. Trial court dismissed the suit holding that plaintiffs or his ancestors had not been able to tender the consideration money of Rs. 700/- to the defendant within the period fixed by the document of agreement and as such it was not open for the plaintiffs to enforce the same. 9. It was presumed that defendant was continuing in possession of the suit land since after purchase from Ram Sewak Sah. 700/- to the defendant within the period fixed by the document of agreement and as such it was not open for the plaintiffs to enforce the same. 9. It was presumed that defendant was continuing in possession of the suit land since after purchase from Ram Sewak Sah. The consideration amount was also not deposited in State Treasury within the stipulated period. 10. Plaintiffs thereafter preferred Title Appeal No. 30 of 1983, which was allowed by impugned judgment and decree dated 29.7.1987, trial court's judgment and decree was set aside and the suit was decreed holding that plaintiffs were already in possession of the suit land and had already paid the entire consideration amount within the stipulated period to the defendant and as such defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in their favour. 11. Defendant, therefore, preferred the present second appeal, which was admitted and following substantial questions of law were framed : (i) "Whether the suit which was filed in 1980 could be held to be barred by limitation as it was not filed within five years from the date of the agreement, i.e., 12.12.1972?" (ii) "Whether the payment of consideration which has been concluded by finding of facts, if made within five years, Le., within 12.12.1972, would save the period of limitation and the plaintiff was entitled to file the suit within three years thereof?" 12. Trial court observed that two slips (Exts. 3 and 3/A) might be concerning some hathpaichas and on "the basis of those papers it was not at all prudent and genuine to hold that late Ram Sewak Sah had paid entire consideration money as also some extra amount to the defendant. 13. Plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the suit land after 5.10.1976 when payment of consideration amount of Rs. 900/- was already made but failed to prove the same. Since genuineness of payment of Rs. 900/- was not proved by plaintiffs question of acquisition or possession of the suit land did not arise. Plaintiffs did not produce any chit of paper to show their possession over the suit land since 5.10.1976. 14. It is now well settled that in regard to contract of reconveyance relating to immovable property if payment of sale consideration was not made by plaintiffs within the stipulated time, option of re-conveyance in his favour must be deemed to have been lapsed. 15. 14. It is now well settled that in regard to contract of reconveyance relating to immovable property if payment of sale consideration was not made by plaintiffs within the stipulated time, option of re-conveyance in his favour must be deemed to have been lapsed. 15. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of apex court in Bismillah Begum (Smt.) Dead by LRs vs. Rahmatullah Khan (Dead) by LRs [ (1998) 2 SCC 226 ]. In the present case the 1st appellate court recorded a finding of fact that defendant had already received back the consideration amount much before the completion of five years time as stipulated in the deed of agreement and as such was under statutory obligation to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. 16. In order to come to the aforesaid finding and to reverse the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs neither tendered the consideration money of Rs. 700/- to the defendant nor deposited the same in Government Treasury within the period fixed by the agreement, Ext. 1, 1st appellate Court considered Exts. 3 and 3/A besides the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Ram Sewak Sah and Maheshwar Mishra both were known to each other and as such every transaction between them was expected to have been transacted in good faith and confidence. 17. P.W. 7 proved the calculation paper, which was marked as Ext. 3. 18. On perusal of Ext. 3 the court of appeal below observed that there was no whisper of the principal amount or the subject matter of the account but normally there can be no reason to abuse this paper as manufactured one. Defendant in his evidence has admitted his writing on Ext. 3/A, but according to him, that was not with regard to disputed consideration amount. In the light of such statement, the burden immediately shifted upon the defendant to specify the amount for which he had made notes on the paper (Ext. 3/A). He said that it must be concerning 'Hathpaicha' amount, which was quite vague and evasive. 19. On perusal of Ext. 3/A, it was observed that rate of interest was not noted thereon but the dates and instalments paid tallied with the date and amount mentioned in the plaint. Defendant admitted that writing thereon was in his pen. 3/A). He said that it must be concerning 'Hathpaicha' amount, which was quite vague and evasive. 19. On perusal of Ext. 3/A, it was observed that rate of interest was not noted thereon but the dates and instalments paid tallied with the date and amount mentioned in the plaint. Defendant admitted that writing thereon was in his pen. These things taken together definitely proved beyond all the reasonable doubt that defendant had accepted the consideration amount in instalment on several dates. The interest was finally calculated by P.W. 7 and balance amount was paid to the defendant. 20. The aforesaid finding of fact arrived at by the court of appeal below that entire consideration amount was paid by the plaintiffs father, Ram Sewak Sah to the defendant within five years from 12.12.1972 is binding in Second Appeal. 21. The suit was also not barred by time as payment of consideration amount within the stipulation period saved period of limitation. 22. There is no merit in this Second Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.