JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant as well as Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the judgment dated 31.05.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No. 31 of 2012 by the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, as he then was. At the time of admission of the appeal the substantial questions of law as framed for hearing are as follows: (i) Whether the courts below while passing the decree has misread the contents of the agreement to sale (Exhibit-4) so far its enforceability is concerned and thus, rendered a finding which is perverse in law? (ii) Whether in absence of any title passed to the plaintiff, the courts below were correct in directing the recovery of possession of the suit land? 3. The suit was filed by the respondent herein who entered into an agreement to sale with the appellant on payment of the earnest money of Rs.2 lakh on 20.11.2006 for purchase of the suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint. In the agreement dated 20.11.2006 (Exhibit-4) it has been clearly stipulated that the remainder of the amount shall be paid within a period of 3 years. The plaintiff-respondent had approached the appellant time and again to accept the remainder of the amount to the extent of Rs.10,000/- but the appellant refused to accept the said amount. On the contrary, she extended a further demand for the additional amount of Rs.5 lakh which was completely beyond the agreement and on such pretext, she had refused to execute the sale deed. Even some more time was sought to execute the sale deed. By the letter (Exhibit-6) the plaintiff-respondent was assured of execution of the sale deed by October, 2009 but the sale deed was not executed though the plaintiff-respondent was ready and is always ready to pay the said remainder amount to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. Finally on expiry of the period as mentioned in the agreement dated 20.11.2006 the respondent instituted the suit being Title Suit 03 of 2012 on 18.01.2012 for specific performance of the said agreement dated 20.11.2006 and for a mandatory injunction for execution of the sale deed in terms of the said agreement. Finally on expiry of the period as mentioned in the agreement dated 20.11.2006 the respondent instituted the suit being Title Suit 03 of 2012 on 18.01.2012 for specific performance of the said agreement dated 20.11.2006 and for a mandatory injunction for execution of the sale deed in terms of the said agreement. It appears further from the plaint that the plaintiff has urged for recovery of the possession evicting the defendant there from and the alternative prayer has been made by the plaintiff for compensation by way of a decree for a sum of Rs.7 lakh if for any reason the decree of specific performance is not granted by the court. 4. The defendant has contested the suit by filing the written statement. In the para 2 of the said written statement, the following has been asserted by the defendant: “In response to the averments made in para 1, para 2 and para 3, the answering defendant submits that besides the registered deed of agreement of the sale there is no oral agreement in between the parties. The answering defendant denies the statement regarding the oral agreement and oral assurance”. 5. However, on recording the evidence, the trial Court by the judgment dated 19.10.2012 has observed that: “Analysing the exhibited documents and also the evidence of the plaintiff side and the defendant side, the plaintiff’s side has successfully proved that there was an Agreement entered between both the sides and the plaintiff performed her part on the contract but the defendant of this case failed to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff of this case is entitled for a decree of specific performance of the contract along with recovery of possession of the suit by evicting the defendant or their men or agent therefrom”. 6. In terms of this finding, the decree was passed in the following manner: “(a) The plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance of the contract. (b) The plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of the possession of the suit land by evicting the defendant or their men or agent therefrom. 6. In terms of this finding, the decree was passed in the following manner: “(a) The plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance of the contract. (b) The plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of the possession of the suit land by evicting the defendant or their men or agent therefrom. (c) The plaintiff is entitled to have the direction that the defendant of this case shall have to execute a Registered Sale Deed in the name of the plaintiff for the suit land as described in the plaint within two months from today on receipt of the rest amount of Rs.10,000/- only from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is directed to hand over the balance consideration money of Rs.10,000/- only of the suit land to the defendant in presence of the District Registrar, Udaipur, Gomati District. The plaintiff is also entitled for a decree that if the defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed for the suit land described in the Schedule of the plaint within the stipulated period of two months from today the Sale Deed will be executed through the court. The plaintiff will approach before the Court with stamp paper, registration fee and other relevant documents and on that occasion the Sheristadar of this Court will execute the Deed for sale of the suit land on behalf of the defendant after observing all the formalities”. 7. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the court of the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur being Title Appeal No. 31 of 2012. By the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No. 31 of 2012, the judgment of the trial Court has been affirmed and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Now, the defendant appellant has filed this appeal to question the said judgment. 8. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised two pronged objections as reflected in the substantial questions of law. With sufficient emphasis, he has submitted that before execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to get recovery of the suit land. It has been further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is completely barred by limitation in terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. With sufficient emphasis, he has submitted that before execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to get recovery of the suit land. It has been further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is completely barred by limitation in terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to him, the limitation would start from the date of refusal of executing the sale deed in terms of the contract. 9. Having due regard, Article 54 of the schedule of the Limitation Act, this court is of the considered view that from the date when refusal has been noticed that would be the date for starting of the limitation. It has been provided that the period of limitation for such category of suits is three years and the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has noticed that performance has been refused shall be the starting point. There cannot be any amount of dispute between the parties that the defendant-appellant received the notice before the last day fixed for execution of the sale deed and despite that he did not execute any sale deed. There is no dispute that the agreement to sale (Exhibit-4) was executed on 20.11.2006 with a provision that on payment of Rs.10,000/- within three years therefrom, the sale deed would be executed. Thus, the last day of performance by the defendant-appellant was 19.11.2009 but he did not execute the sale deed and even thereafter there were some parleys. However, those parleys according to the defendant-appellant did not bind him in any manner against the registered agreement. This court has without entering into any dispute whether the registered agreement can be extended by oral agreement or not, simply going by the projection as made by the defendant-appellant come to a conclusion that when the suit was filed on 18.01.2012 it was within the limitation as the refusal has to be noticed from 19.11.2009 or thereafter and hence the suit was filed within three years there from. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment and he has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in S. Brahmanand and others vs. K.R.Muthugopal (D) and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 40 where the Apex Court has inter alia observed that Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 provides that every promisee may extend time for the performance of the contract. Such an agreement to extend time need not necessarily be reduced to writing but may be proved by oral evidence or in some cases, even by evidence of conduct including forbearance on the part of the other party. Since this court has not taken into consideration the extension of time as has been claimed to have made by the plaintiff, this decision will have no bearing in the context. 11 Having observed thus and as the suit is within limitation, in the context of the admitted fact that the plaintiff-respondent has performed her part in accordance with the said agreement and she was always ready and is ready to deposit the remainder of the amount to the extent of Rs.10,000/-, it had squarely obligated the defendant-appellant to perform his part but he had not performed his part within the time as stipulated in the said agreement (Exhibit-4). As a result, when the plaintiff has successfully proved that she was ready to pay the remainder of the amount and she is ready and even she had approached the defendant-respondent more than one occasion, the refusal is manifest on the records and as such this court does not find any infirmity in the finding and decree, as returned and issued by the courts below that the defendant-respondent shall execute the sale deed within a period of two months from the date of the decree. However, the blanket decree of recovery of possession cannot sustain the scrutiny of law. Accordingly, the said part of the denial is interfered with and modified in the following manner. 12. It is declared that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to the decree of specific performance of the said contract/ agreement dated 20.11.2006 (Exhibit-4). The plaintiff-respondent is further entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-appellant to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of and in the name of the plaintiff-respondent. 12. It is declared that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to the decree of specific performance of the said contract/ agreement dated 20.11.2006 (Exhibit-4). The plaintiff-respondent is further entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-appellant to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of and in the name of the plaintiff-respondent. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant is directed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent within a period of two months from the date when the defendant-appellant would receive the remainder of the amount i.e. Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent may remit/ pay the said amount of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant-appellant forthwith for animating the terms of the mandatory injunction. In the event of failure of execution of the sale deed by the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent can get the sale deed executed through the court. For that purpose it will be the plaintiff-respondent’s obligation to approach this court with requisite stamp paper, registration fee and other relevant documents and in that occasion, in terms of the judgment and decree the Sheristedar of the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, South Tripura, Udaipur shall execute the deed of sale in respect of the suit land on behalf of the defendant by virtue of this judgment and order after observing all formalities. It is made further clear that on the day of execution of such sale deed, since the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to have the possession, a decree of recovery of possession shall be deemed to have come into its force on the date when the sale deed would be executed either by the defendant-appellant or by the Sheristedar of the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, South Tripura, Udaipur in the circumstances as clarified aboveand the said decree would be executable after 30(thirty) days from the date of execution of the sale deed and thus the defendant-appellant is directed to handover the possession of the land within 30(thirty) days to the plaintiff-respondent in the mode as described without fail. 10. Having observed thus, this appeal stands dismissed with the modification made in the order which will form part of the decree. Send down the LCRs forthwith after preparation of the decree.