JUDGMENT 1. - The instant second appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff Late Shri Manohar Lal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 17/11/2006 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No.71/2002, whereby the Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree dated 6/9/2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.34/223/1995. 2. The short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the original plaintiff-Manohar Lal had filed the suit against the respondent No.1-original defendant, seeking declaration to the effect that the agreements dated 1/1/1979 and 23/6/1979 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant were illegal and being barred by law of limitation could not be executed, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the possession of the suit premises from the defendant. The plaintiff had also sought for the mesne profits @ Rs. 250/- per month pending the suit, and subsequently had amended the said prayer by claiming Rs. 38036 towards menses profits for the use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendant. It was alleged in the plaint inter-alia that the suit shop was inherited by the plaintiff Manohar Lal from his father Shri Trilok Chand, and thus the suit shop was an ancestral property. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the said suit shop to the defendant by executing an agreement dated 1/1/1979 for Rs. 14,700/-, and that the defendant had paid Rs. 2,000/- at that time of agreement, further agreeing to pay the entire consideration or or before 8/1/1979. As per the said agreement, the possession of the suit shop was handed over to the defendant. Thereafter a further agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 23/6/1979, whereby it was agreed inter-alia that the sale deed would be executed in favour of the defendant Suraj Bhan, after the dispute between the plaintiff Manohar Lal and his son's was over. The defendant Suraj Bhan further paid Rs. 3,700/- to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the second agreement. The defendant Suraj Bhan further paid Rs. 3,700/- to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the second agreement. According to the plaintiff, thereafter some litigation had pursued between him and his son's, in which the suit filed by his sons for partition was dismissed and the appeal filed against the said judgment was disposed of sometime in 1985. The plaintiff thereafter filed the suit, seeking afore-stated reliefs. 3. The said suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing the written-statement as also the counter claim, seeking specific performance of the said agreements dated 1/1/1979 and 23/6/1979, stating inter-alia that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, and cause of action had arisen on the filing of suit by the plaintiff in 1985, when he refused to perform his part of contract. The said counter claim was resisted by the plaintiff by filing the rejoinder thereto. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Manohar Lal having expired, his legal heirs were permitted to be substituted. The Trial Court from the pleadings of the parties had framed the issues, and after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and allowed the counter claim filed by the respondent/defendant by directing the appellants/plaintiffs to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant, within 60 days of the defendant depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 9,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of agreement till the execution of the sale deed vide judgment and decree dated 6/9/2002. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the present appellants had filed the appeal before the Appellate Court, which came to be partly allowed, by directing the respondent to pay Rs. 9,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum vide the judgment and decree dated 17/11/2006. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present second appeal. 4. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S.L. Songara for the appellants that both the courts below have committed serious error of law in not holding that the counter claim made by the respondent was time barred. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present second appeal. 4. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S.L. Songara for the appellants that both the courts below have committed serious error of law in not holding that the counter claim made by the respondent was time barred. He further submitted that the property being ancestral property, the original plaintiff Manohar Lal had no right to execute the agreement in respect of the property, in which his minor sons also had the share, more particularly when no legal necessity for selling the property was mentioned in the agreement. According to him, the Appellate Court had not raised any points of determination for deciding the appeal, and therefore had not complied with the requirement of Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC. He further submitted that the respondent/defendant could have made the counter claim only in cases involving money claim, in view of Order 8, Rule 6A of CPC, and therefore also the counter claim of the respondent/defendant seeking specific performance the agreements was not maintainable. Mr. Songara has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in cases of B.V. Nagesh & Anr. v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2011 DNJ (SC) 891 , Narinderjit Singh v. North Star Estate Promoters Limited, 2012(2) WLC (SC) Civil 59 & also of the Patana High Court in case of Jashwant Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur & Ors., AIR 1983 Patna 132 & Rajasthan High Court in case of Dev Kishan & Ors. v. Ram Kishan & Ors., AIR 2002 Rajasthan 370 to buttress his submissions. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Mohit Gupta for the respondent, however, submitted that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, this Court should not interfere with the same, when no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. He also submitted that the decree in question has already been executed through the Court, and therefore also the appeal has become infructuous. 6. He also submitted that the decree in question has already been executed through the Court, and therefore also the appeal has become infructuous. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, as also the record of the case, it appears that the suit was filed by the original plaintiff Manohar Lal, predecessor in title of the present appellants, seeking declaration to the effect that the agreements dated 1/1/1979 and 23/6/1979 being time barred were not enforceable at law, and that he was entitled to get back the possession of the disputed shop. The main thrust of the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Songara for the appellants is that the counter claim by the respondent/defendant was barred by law of limitation. However, it is pertinent to note that as per the pleadings of the plaintiff himself, he had admitted the execution of both the agreements, and further pleaded that the litigation between him and his sons in respect of the suit shop had continued till 1985. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed was to be executed after the disputes between him and his sons were over, which admittedly were over in the year 1985. It was also admitted by the plaintiff that the possession of the suit shop was already handed over by him to the respondent/defendant at the time of execution of the first agreement dated 1/1/1979 on receiving Rs. 2,000/- from the defendant. Under the circumstances, the possession of suit shop being with the defendant, and the litigation between plaintiff and his sons being pending till 1985, the question of execution of sale deed in favour of the defendant did not arise, till the plaintiff filed the suit. It was for the first time when the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1985 that the plaintiff had refused to perform his part of contract stating that the agreements in question were unenforceable. Hence, the period of limitation had started running only on the plaintiff's refusing to execute the sale deed as stated in the plaint. The defendant therefore having filed the counter claim in response to the said suit, seeking specific performance of these agreements could not be said to be barred by law of limitation, as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. The defendant therefore having filed the counter claim in response to the said suit, seeking specific performance of these agreements could not be said to be barred by law of limitation, as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. 7. Both the Courts below have rightly considered the issues involved in the suit after properly appreciating the evidence on record and recorded the findings against the appellants. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same more particularly when no question of law much-less substantial question of law has been found to be involved in the present appeal. Though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Appellate Court had not raised point for determination as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC, it is required to be noted that the Appellate Court has given its findings on all the issues framed by the Trial Court, and therefore there was no necessity for the Appellate Court to raise fresh points for determination. It is further required to be noted that the decree passed by the Courts below has already been executed, and the sale deed has been executed in favour of the respondents-defendants through the Court. 8. In the aforesaid premises, the Court does not find any substance in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******