Judgment Bhagwati Prasad, J.— Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Har Das wherein he has challenged the order passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2 Hanumangarh passed in suit No. 19/82 on 22.10.1982. The suit was filed by the defendant respondent in the trial Court alleging inter alia that the appellant defendant executed an agreement in his favour for above 7 bigha of land on 25.08.1978. 2. The sale money was paid on that day itself and possession was handed over to the plaintiff respondent. In the agreement this was agreed that as soon as the land will be cleared from the department, the sale deed will be executed and in case of failure of the appellant defendant, he will pay compensation to the same as compensation. The appellant defendant continue to avoid the execution of sale. Ultimately, the plaintiff gave a notice and in response to the notice dt. 26.03.1979, a reply was given by the appellant defendant that he had not entered into any agreement, in fact he had taken loan from the plaintiff respondent and in consideration thereto, the agreement was written. It was not really intention of the parties to enter into any agreement. Meanwhile, the defendant paid half of the amount i.e. Rs. 8,000/- The plaintiff respondent toured out the paper saying that the same is the agreement. Alleging that the defendant appellant has turned down his request for execution of the sale deed, the present suit was filed. On the basis of pleadings 9 issues were settled. Meanwhile, the defendant paid half of the amount i.e. Rs. 8,000/- The plaintiff respondent toured out the paper saying that the same is the agreement. Alleging that the defendant appellant has turned down his request for execution of the sale deed, the present suit was filed. On the basis of pleadings 9 issues were settled. They are as under: (1) vk;k eqnbZ vkjkth eqrnkfo;k fuLcr fMxzh rdehy eq[r; eqnk;g% oS; ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSa\ (2) vk;k oknh lafonk dh fofufnZ"V ikyuk ds fy, lnSo rRij o bPNqd jgk gSa\ (3) vk;k fMxzh rdehy eqdnek u feyus dh lwjr esa eqnbZ 16000@^ isÓkh o 16000@& crkSj gjtkuk dqy 32000@& dh fMxzh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSa\ (4) vk;k nkok fe;kn ckgj gSa\ (5) vk;k eqnk;yk us eqnbZ ds gd esa vkjkth eqrnkfo;k dks oS; djus dk lkSnk ugha fd;k vkSj 16000@& :i;s rk- 25-08-1972 dks crkSj dher vkjkth eqnbZ ls olwy ugha fd, cfYd eqrkfcd c;ku nQk 10 vthZnkok eqnk;yk us eqnbZ ls mDr rkjh[k dks 16000@& dtZ fy, Fks vkSj bdjkjukek oS; vkjkth eqrnkfo;k mDr dtkZ ckcr eqnbZ dh fn[kteh ds fy, eqnk;yk us rgjhj rdehy vkjkth eqrnkfo;k mDr dtkZ esjs eqnbZ dks dkÓr ds fy, nh\ (6) vk;k eqnk;yk us eqrkfcd c;ku nQk 11 tokcnkok Qly dk fglkc dj dqy dtkZ dh vnk;xh eqdnek esa dj nh vkSj jlhn ekaxus ij eqnbZ us eqnk;yk oS; tSls fy[ks vU; nLrkost dks eqnk;yk oS; crykdj eqnk;yk ds lkeus QkM+ fn;k\ ;fn fd;k gS rks nkok ij D;k vlj gSa\ (7) vk;k fcuk lk{; vf/kdkjh dh Lohd`fr ds vkjkth eqrnkfo;k ugha csph tk ldrh blfy, eqnk;yk oS; unenforciable gSa\ (8) vk;k eqrkfcd nQk 13 tokcnkok [kkfjt b[kjkth gSa\ (9) nknjlhAß 3. Deciding issue No. 2, the trial Court held that the execution of the agreement and giving of notice is proved. This has also not been established that after receiving the clearance papers of land, information was communicated to the plaintiff by defendant is not established. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that it is established that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to get the agreement executed. In that background issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that it is established that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to get the agreement executed. In that background issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 4 which relates to the fact that whether there was any question of limitation, it has been held by the trial Court that after execution of the document, the issuance of notice on 03.03.1979 and its reply dt. 26.03.1979 is established. In reply, the appellant has refused to execute the sale deed and in this background after having receiving the refusal on 26.03.1979, the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff and after the refusal suit was filed on 04.05.1979. Thus, the trial Court has held that the suit is within limitation. 4. The alleged payment of Rs. 8000/- is not being found to be established and in this background, the issue No. 4 was held proved against the defendant/appellant. issue No. 5 regarding the nature of transaction also has been held against the appellant and payment of Rs. 8000/- is not found to be established and, therefore, the agreement has been found to has been written on the consideration of Rs. 16,000/- It has also been found that the possession was handed over to the plaintiff in terms of Ex./1 for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/- Since the time was not the essence of the agreement, therefore, from refusal, the limitation started. 5. As regards the nature of the agreement except oral evidence, nothing was there to conclude that the same was not true. It has come on record that anything else was the requirement of the agreement, thus, issue No. 5 has been held against the appellant. Issue No. 7 regarding impediment in sale has not been found to be established because no document has been filed by the appellant and thus, the finding of issue No. 7 has also been recorded against the defendant appellant. issue No. 9 has also been held in favour of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to get the contract performed and it has clearly come in the para 3 of the plaint. Except this statement, what is required has not been contended by the defendant appellant and, therefore, this issue has also been held against the, appellant defendant. Except this statement, what is required has not been contended by the defendant appellant and, therefore, this issue has also been held against the, appellant defendant. Issue No. 9 has been held against the appellant holding that on the day they entered into an agreement and possession was given to the plaintiff defendant. In what view of the matter, the suit was decreed, hence appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant arguing the appeal urged that the appeal is barred by limitation in terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act because the appeal could only be maintained within three years of the agreement. The agreement was made on 25.08.1972 and the suit was filed on 04.05.1979. Learned counsel for the defendant plaintiff submitted that there was no time limit fixed in the contract and thus, in terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, in view of the reply to the notice given by the defendant/appellant refused to execute the agreement. The limitation started and from the day the execution was denied in reply to the notice, therefore, limitation started from that date only i.e. 26.03.1979 and the suit was filed on 04.05.1979. It was well within the limitation. 7. On this count, the facts are very simple and straight. Limitation was required to start from the date of refusal i.e. 26.03.1979 because no other date was fixed in the agreement. On the question of limitation, learned counsel appellant urged that the knowledge of the plaintiff was earlier when the appellant defendant sold the land to another purchaser. In this regard there is no specific evidence on record thus knowledge cannot be found established from any other date. 8. In that regard refusal has been established by the reply of the notice. It that view it can safely be stated that the question of limitation has been decided by the trial Court. The agreement having been established and it is established that the amount has been paid and possession starts parted with the finding of other issues are not liable to be disturbed. There is no force. The appeal is dismissed.