M. NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment, according to Law, based on the legal material placed by both the parties, on Record, arises out of a Second Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R. 1 to R. 8, under Section 100, CPC, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) JUDGMENT and Decree, both, dated 23-2-1995, of the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Vizianagaram, made in A. S. No. 39/93, of its file, confirming, in toto, the earlier judgment and Decree, both, dated 29-10-1992, of the Court of the District Munsif (re-designated as Junior Civil Judge), Cheepurupalli, made in O. S. No. 75/85, of its file. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the Record. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard. ( 5 ) THE sole appellant in this Second Appeal corresponds to the sole appellant in the said A. S. No. 39/93, of the said First Appellate Court and D. 5 in the said O. S. No. 75/85, of the (sic) of the said trial Court. R. 1 in this Second Appeal corresponds to R. 1 in the said First Appeal and the sole plaintiff in that suit of the trial Court. R. 2 to R. 8 herein correspond, respectively, to R. 2 to R. 8 in that First Appeal and D. 1, D. 3, D. 4 and D. 6 to D. 9 in that suit, D. 2 in that suit having died during the pendency of the suit itself. ( 6 ) THE parties are, hereinafter, referred to, with reference to their respective descriptions before the said trial Court, in that suit, unless, otherwise, so specified. ( 7 ) THE subject matter of the suit, as also, the first appeal, as well as, this Second Appeal, and the reliefs claimed in respect whereof, as described in the schedule of the plaint, is set forth, in brief, as under :- "ac. 100 of dry land situated in Sy. No. 21/20 in Patta No. 31 of Sumitrapuram village of Cheepurupalli Taluk of Vizianagaram District and bound on its four sides, as described, in detail, in that schedule. 100 of dry land situated in Sy. No. 21/20 in Patta No. 31 of Sumitrapuram village of Cheepurupalli Taluk of Vizianagaram District and bound on its four sides, as described, in detail, in that schedule. " ( 8 ) IN respect thereof, the sole plaintiff filed the said O. S. No. 75/85, against D. 1 to D. 9, in the said trial Court, for the main reliefs as set forth, hereunder :- (A) For specific performance of the suit agreement of sale, dated 10-4-1979, exhibited as Ex. A. 1; (B) For alternative relief of directing the defendants, to refund the sale consideration of Rs. 1,500/- with subsequent interest and for a charge over the scheduled property, in respect thereof;and (C) For costs of the case. ( 9 ) THE defendants opposed the suit claims and the foregoing reliefs, and, hence, urged for dismissal of the suit, with costs to them, etc. ( 10 ) AFTER due settlement of the issues therein, the said Trial Court tried the said O. S. No,. 75/85, in the process whereof, it recorded the oral evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 4, and D. W. 1 to D. W. 3, and exhibited, the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. A. 1 to 10 and Exs. B. 1 to B. 3, and, later, after due arguments there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by its judgment and the decree, both, dated 29-10-1992, set forth in para 2, supra, as under :- "granting all the reliefs claimed in the plaint and set forth in sub-paras (a) to (c) of para 8 supra". ( 11 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and questioning the validity and legality, thereof, only D. 5 filed the said A. S. No. 39/93, in the said First Appellate Court, which, after due enquiry there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon by its now impugned judgment and decree, both, dated 23-2-1995, set forth in para 2, supra, as under :- (A) Confirming, in toto, the judgment and the Decree, of the said Trial Court, made in that O. S. No. 75/85, and set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph, etc. (b) Consequently, dismissing the First Appeal, in toto, and (c) Directing the sole appellant/d. 5 therein, to pay costs of that First Appeal to the sole plaintiff/r. 1 therein. (b) Consequently, dismissing the First Appeal, in toto, and (c) Directing the sole appellant/d. 5 therein, to pay costs of that First Appeal to the sole plaintiff/r. 1 therein. ( 12 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and questioning the, validity and legality thereof, only D. 5 filed the present Second Appeal, as set forth in paras 1 and 2, supra. ( 13 ) AS aforesaid, the basis for the suit claims and the relief for specific performance, etc. set forth in para 8 supra, the suit agreement of sale, exhibited as Ex. A-1, dated 10-4-1979, alleged to have been executed by D. 1 to D. 4, in favour of the plaintiff. This is the basic suit document. D. 5 (sole appellant herein) claimed that she purchased the same plaint scheduled property, from D. 1 to D. 4, under Registered Deed of Sale, dated 19-12-1984, for Rs. 10,000/- and exhibited as Ex. B. 1. D. 5, inter alia, claimed that she was a bona fide purchaser under Ex. B. 1 for valuable consideration, without notice or knowledge of the alleged Ex. A. 1, even if it is true, etc. ( 14 ) D. 1 to D. 4, who are admittedly, the owners of the plaint scheduled property and who are claimed to have executed both the said Ex. A. 1, as well as, Ex. B. 1, however, remained ex parte in the suit and did not contest the suit, or, the said First Appeal. ( 15 ) THE Trial Court framed the five issues, as under, for trial by it :- (I) Whether the conditional agreement of sale, dated 10-4-1979, is true, valid and binding on the Defendant No. 5? (II) Whether the 5th defendant is a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement of sale, dated 10-4-1979? (III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement of sale? (IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,500/- advanced to Defendants 1 to 4? (V) To what relief? ( 16 ) ON issue No. 1, the trial Court found that Ex. A. 1 is true, valid and genuine and is binding on D. 5 (sole appellant herein. On Issue No. 2, the Trial Court found that D. 5 is not a bona fide purchaser without notice of Ex. A. 1. (V) To what relief? ( 16 ) ON issue No. 1, the trial Court found that Ex. A. 1 is true, valid and genuine and is binding on D. 5 (sole appellant herein. On Issue No. 2, the Trial Court found that D. 5 is not a bona fide purchaser without notice of Ex. A. 1. On Issue No. 3, the trial Court found that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance. On issue No. 4, the trial Court found that the plaintiff has no necessity to refund Rs. 1,500/- received as advance, because of the finding on issue No. 3. On issue No. 5, the Trial Court decreed the suit as claimed in the suit, etc. , as aforesaid. ( 17 ) THE First Appellate Court, by its now impugned judgment and decree, confirmed all the foregoing finding, on all the issues, recorded by the trial Court and set forth in the two immediately preceding paragraphs. Therefore, there are concurrent findings of fact by both the trial Court, as well as, the First Appellate Court. ( 18 ) HOWEVER, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, this Court, because, it is satisfied, that there is substantial question of law, to be considered and adjudged by this Court, in this Second Appeal, formulated the substantial question under sub-section (4) of Section 100, CPC as under :- "whether the suit claims are within the period of limitation, i. e. , whether the same are barred by limitation ?" ( 19 ) LATER, further arguments were heard of the learned Counsel, in respect thereof. ( 20 ) AS aforesaid, the said Ex. A. 1 suit agreement is dated 10-4-1979. The plaint was first presented before the said trial Court on 3-5-1985 i. e. , after lapse of about 6 years and 22 days. Hence, the suit claims appear to be barred, on the face of it, by limitation. ( 21 ) HOWEVER, under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for specific performance of the contract has to be filed within three years, either from the date fixed in the contract, for performance, or, in the alternative, if no date is fixed, then, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. ( 22 ) A direct examination of the contents of said Ex. ( 22 ) A direct examination of the contents of said Ex. A. 1 will reveal, that, thereby, time of 3 years was fixed from the date of that Ex. A. 1, for obtaining the sale deed by the plaintiff from D. 1 to D. 4, in terms thereof, etc. ( 23 ) SO, therefore, under the said Article 54, the period of limitation will commence to run only after 3 years from 10-4-1979, the date of Ex. A. 1, i. e. from 10-4-1982. ( 24 ) SO, from 10-4-1982, the three years period of limitation will expire on 10-4-1985. While so, the plaint was first presented in the said Court of institution, being the trial Court, on 3-5-1985. Hence, the suit claims are barred by limitation, by about 22 days. Even if there is one day delay, the suit claims will be barred by limitation. ( 25 ) AS already set forth, supra, because, time is fixed for performance, the question of refusal to perform the contract and the plaintiff having notice thereof and the date thereof will not arise for consideration. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim that under Ex. A-3 Notice dated 30-12-1984, the limitation is saved at all. ( 26 ) UNDER sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is mandatory on the part of the Court, inter alia, to dismiss a suit, where the suit claims are barred by limitation, notwithstanding the factum of such bar of limitation being not set up as defence, by the defendants. For this reason also, it will be substantive question of Law as the bar of limitation will decide the very fate of the suit and the reliefs claimed therein, in toto. ( 27 ) SO, therefore, when the suit claims are barred by limitation, then, the suit cannot be decreed in pursuance of Ex. A. 1-Agreement of Sale. ( 28 ) NOR can it be confirmed by the First Appellate Court as was done, respectively, by the trial Court and the first Appellate court by their respective judgments set forth in the foregoing paragraphs. ( 29 ) SO, therefore, when Ex. A. 1 Contract is not enforceable at Law, because it is barred by limitation, then, all the suit claims are not warranted to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. ( 29 ) SO, therefore, when Ex. A. 1 Contract is not enforceable at Law, because it is barred by limitation, then, all the suit claims are not warranted to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. ( 30 ) HENCE, in the circumstance, whether D. 5 is a bona fide purchaser under Ex. B. 1, without notice of Ex. A. 1 etc. will not have any significance, at all. ( 31 ) HENCE, the substantial question of Law formulated in this Second Appeal is adjudged, accordingly, that all the suit claims are barred by the Law of Limitation. ( 32 ) HENCE, the impugned judgment and Decree of the first Appellate Court, confirming the same, covered thereby, of the trial Court, are unsustainable at fact and law, and hence, liable to be set aside, in toto, and, consequently, the suit of the trial Court has to be dismissed, in toto, as is being done, hereunder. ( 33 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Second Appeal, as under :- (I) Setting aside, in toto, the judgment and decree, both, dated 23-2-1995, of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Viziana-garam, made in A. S. No. 39/93, of its file which confirmed in toto, the earlier Judgment and Decree, both, dated 29-10-1992, of the Court of the District Munsif, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District, made in O. S. No. 75/85, of its file; (II) Consequently, adjudicating upon the said O. S. No. 75/85, of the said trial Court, as under :- (a) Refusing all the reliefs claimed in the plaint; (b) Consequently, dismissing the suit, in toto; and (c) Directing the parties to the suit, to bear their own costs incurred therein;and (III) Directing the parties to the Second Appeal, to bear their own costs incurred herein. Order accordingly.