JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, who is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.11.1992 has been rejected. The plaintiff had filed the suit on 23.4.2004 wherein it was alleged that defendant no.1 (who happens to be his brother) had agreed to sell part of his house measuring 117- 1/2 yards i.e. 70’-6" X 15’ consisting of one room, courtyard in front having approach from a common passage 11’ wide connecting the house with the main road . The boundaries of the house were also mentioned in the plaint. The alleged sale consideration was of Rs.10,000/- and the amount was paid in cash and a separate receipt had been executed. It was alleged that actual possession had been delivered to defendant no.1 which was marked by letters ABCD in the site plan and the agreement was partly performed and the total sale consideration had been paid. It was agreed that valid and proper sale deed would be executed within 15 days from the date of demand and in case of failure, the plaintiff would be entitled to get a sale deed executed by filing the suit for specific performance. The allegations in the plaint was that in violation of the agreement to sell, defendant no.1 illegally transferred the property in favour of defendant no.2 on 4.2.2004 and defendant no.2 was well aware of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. It was accordingly contended that since actual possession was already delivered by defendant no.1 in part performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.11.1992, therefore, defendant no.2 was also bound by the said agreement to execute a valid sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, on coming to know the sale deed dated 4.2.2004, a legal notice was served upon on the defendants, on which they had started threatening the plaintiff to take forcibly possession of the house in dispute shown in letters ABCD in red colour and if they succeed in doing so, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The cause of action was alleged to have accrued on 7.4.2004 and, accordingly, a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell was prayed for and that possession may be delivered to the plaintiff of the house in question. 2. The cause of action was alleged to have accrued on 7.4.2004 and, accordingly, a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell was prayed for and that possession may be delivered to the plaintiff of the house in question. 2. In the written statement filed by defendant no.1, it was alleged that the property had been sold by registered sale deed No.6587 dated 4.2.2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.70,500/- and vacant and physical possession of the property had been delivered to defendant no.2 and the plaintiff was not in physical possession of the property. It was denied that there was any agreement to sell or any receipt had been executed and if there was any such agreement to sell and any receipt, the same were based on fraud because the plaintiff and answering defendant are real brothers and previously having good terms and the plaintiff might have fraudulently got the signatures by misrepresenting the facts and the agreement was null and void. It was also contended that the suit of the plaintiff was time barred as the present suit having been filed on 23.4.2004 after a gap of more than 11 years. The falsehood in the contract was pleaded since physical possession was never with the plaintiff and that defendant no.2 was in possession. The factum of receiving the amount of Rs.10,000/- was also denied and that defendant no.2 being in possession was a bonafide owner. It was pleaded that notice was duly replied by defendant no.2 and similarly, the written statement filed by defendant no.2, who also took the plea that suit filed after 11 years was not maintainable and no possession had been delivered to the plaintiff and the answer defendant being a bonafide purchaser was owner in possession of the suit property vide sale deed dated 4.2.2004. It was also contended that notice was replied vide letter dated 21.4.2004 and the suit was filed in collusion with the defendant No.1 vendor. It was also contended that defendant No.2 had no knowledge about alleged contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and he had been delivered vacant and physical possession of the house in dispute by defendant no.1 at the time of registration of sale deed. 3. It was also contended that defendant No.2 had no knowledge about alleged contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and he had been delivered vacant and physical possession of the house in dispute by defendant no.1 at the time of registration of sale deed. 3. In replication, the plaintiff took the plea that as per the agreement, limitation would start within 15 days from the date of service of notice and notice was sent on 7.4.2004. It was also alleged that defendant no.2 had illegally demolished the room measuring 15’ X 12’ which existed in the suit property and he was bound to restore the position as it existed at the time of filing of the suit and it was alleged that defendant no.1 being real brother had become dishonest and colluded with defendant no.2 and had sold the suit property. 4. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.11.1992, as alleged, if so to what effect? OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the resent present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD 6. Relief.” 5. The trial Court after taking into consideration the statements of the three plaintiff’s witnesses and the documents placed on record alongwith statements of three defendant witnesses came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell was executed but the remaining part of the contract regarding the willingness of the plaintiff to make efforts for the execution of the sale deed from 1992 onwards were missing. The contents of legal notice dated 7.4.2004 were taken into consideration including the averments made in the plaint that the defendant was not ready and willing to execute his part of the agreement from the date of contract and the date of filing of the suit. The contents of legal notice dated 7.4.2004 were taken into consideration including the averments made in the plaint that the defendant was not ready and willing to execute his part of the agreement from the date of contract and the date of filing of the suit. The failure of the plaintiff to prove that he had taken possession of the portion of the house in dispute was also taken into consideration and, therefore, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled for the decree of specific performance in view of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. While deciding issues No.2 and 5, it was held that legal notice to get the agreement to sell executed was served after almost 12 years and no circumstance was shown why he could not execute the sale deed earlier and, thus, he was negligent in performing his part of the contract and, therefore, the discretionary relief was not liable to be granted to him and the suit was barred by limitation and not maintainable. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.2009. 6. The appeal filed before the Lower Appellate court was dismissed on 7.6.2010 and resultantly the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the period of limitation of three years would run from the date fixed for specific performance and in this case no such date is fixed then from the date the plaintiff gave legal notice since that date of performance has been fixed. Reliance has been placed on Karan Singh Vs. Bhagwani and others, 2004(3) PLR 227 and Janardhanam Prasad Vs. Ramdas, 2007(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 881. Accordingly, it was contended that the findings of the Courts below are not justified and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. There is no quarrel with this proposition which is argued by the counsel for the appellant. However, the judgment of Karan Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the fact that interests of defendant no.2 have come in the way who was bonafide purchaser from defendant no.1. In the said judgment, there was no such fact arising out of the dispute. However, the judgment of Karan Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the fact that interests of defendant no.2 have come in the way who was bonafide purchaser from defendant no.1. In the said judgment, there was no such fact arising out of the dispute. In the present case, admittedly the property was sold vide sale deed dated 4.2.2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.70,500/- by defendant no.1 almost 12 years after the agreement had been executed. Therefore, defendant no.2 was a bonafide purchase and his rights have rightly been protected and the discretionary relief exercisable under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been rightly declined. The judgment in Janardhanam Prasad’s case (supra) also noticed that Court can refuse to exercise its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and specially in the present case since defendant no.2 came in possession and made improvements in the suit property. In the present case the sale consideration as per agreement is only Rs.10,000/- whereas defendant no.2 had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 4.2.2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.70,500/-. The Courts below have already noticed the conduct of the plaintiff that he was not ready and willing for a period of 12 years to execute the sale deed. The fact that the plaintiff and the defendants are real brothers and defendant no.2 who was a bonafide purchaser having no notice of agreement to sell Ex.P2 cannot be put to prejudice. Both the Courts below have examined the evidence in detail and come to the conclusion that readiness and willingness on behalf of the plaintiff was missing and have rightly declined the discretionary relief of specific performance. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no issue of bonafide purchaser and therefore, the same should not be held against him. The pleadings of the parties have been discussed in detail above. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no issue of bonafide purchaser and therefore, the same should not be held against him. The pleadings of the parties have been discussed in detail above. Once a specific plea had been taken of a bonafide purchaser and even though no issue has been framed but the sequence of events and the fact there is no manner of doubt that serious prejudice would be caused to defendant no.2, the submission of the counsel is not acceptable as it is settled that even in the absence of issue once the parties are aware of the pleadings and there is evidence on record the Court can decide and record a finding on the same without there being a specific issue. 9. Thus, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises from the records of the present case which would warrant interference in Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine and judgments and decrees of the Courts below are upheld. --------------------