JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Instant regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, H.P., in CA No. 07/07, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Sr. Div.), Kullu, H.P., in CS No. 12 of 2002/RBT No. 52 of 2005, whereby suit for specific performance of contract as well as declaration having been filed by the plaintiff-appellant (herein after referred to as "the plaintiff"), came to be dismissed. 2. In nutshell, facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract as well as for declaration, averring therein that respondent No.1, agreed to sell his half share in the suit land, description whereof is given in the plaint, vide agreement dated 23.3.1995, for total consideration of Rs. 4,75,000/- . As per plaintiff, sum of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to defendant No.1 on the same date i.e. 23.3.1995, whereas remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, which as per agreed terms was to be executed on or before 23.3.1998. Plaintiff averred that in the month of August, 1996, defendant No.1 asked the plaintiff to pay more money as he was in need of the same and as such, plaintiff made further payment of Rs. 40,770/- against the receipt. As per plaintiff, he again on the request of defendant No.1, paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the defendant on 25.12.1997, against proper receipt. Plaintiff apprised defendant No.1 that he is ready and willing to purchase the suit land by paying balance consideration amount and asked him to remain present in the office of Sub- Registrar on 23.3.1998, so that sale deed is executed in terms of agreement dated 23.3.1995 but despite assurance, defendant No.1 failed to turn up. On 8.2.1999, plaintiff served defendant No.1 with the registered notice through his counsel Mr. A.C. Thakur, Advocate, calling upon him to execute the sale deed. Plaintiff again requested the defendants through registered letter dated 30.7.1999 and 25.5.2000 for the execution of sale deed, but in vain. Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that on 3.3.1999, plaintiff on the request of son of defendant No.1 Mohan Lal, who had come to his house, paid sum of Rs. 2,500/-. Plaintiff again requested the defendants through registered letter dated 30.7.1999 and 25.5.2000 for the execution of sale deed, but in vain. Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that on 3.3.1999, plaintiff on the request of son of defendant No.1 Mohan Lal, who had come to his house, paid sum of Rs. 2,500/-. On 22.5.1999, plaintiff again paid sum of Rs. 1043 for ration and Rs. 175 for the purchase of clothes, but thereafter son of defendant No.1 died, for whose last rites, plaintiff again paid a sum of Rs. 16,000/- to the defendant No.1 on 28.6.1999. Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that there was litigation with one Subhadra and defendant No.1 and as such, defendant No.1 expressed his inability to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and gave impression to him that Smt. Subhadra had filed an appeal and the litigation is still pending and as such, he could not insist upon defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed. Plaintiff claimed before the court below that during the pendency of the case, he came to know that defendant No.1 had transferred the suit land by making the gift deed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. his grandsons vide gift deed No. 951 dated 29.6.2001 and mutation No. 6135 was also entered and attested on 25.7.2001. Plaintiff also set up a case before the court below that he came to know that defendant No.1 had also sold 4 biswas of land out of the suit land to one Shri Chhape Ram (defendant No.4) vide registered sale deed dated 12.7.2001, upon which mutation No. 6138 was entered and attested on 27.7.2004, whereafter he got his plaint amended and also challenged the gift deed made by defendant No.1 in favour of his grandsons as well as mutation attested on the basis of said transactions being null and void. 3. Defendant No.1 by way of written statement resisted the aforesaid claim on the ground of maintainability, limitation and cause of action. On merits, defendants denied factum with regard to execution of agreement dated 23.3.1995. Defendant also denied that in the year, 1996 to 1998, he had received Rs.2,40,777/- and Rs. 80,000/- from the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also denied that plaintiff had been paying money to him and his son from time to time and he had issued receipts in that regard. On merits, defendants denied factum with regard to execution of agreement dated 23.3.1995. Defendant also denied that in the year, 1996 to 1998, he had received Rs.2,40,777/- and Rs. 80,000/- from the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also denied that plaintiff had been paying money to him and his son from time to time and he had issued receipts in that regard. Defendant No.1 also claimed that he rightly gifted the suit land in favour of the grandsons and thereafter, rightly sold the part of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.4. Defendants No. 2 and 3 by way of separate written statement denied the execution of agreement by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff to sell the suit land. Defendants No. 2 and 3 also claimed that valid gift deed was executed in their favour by defendant No.1 and plaintiff had the knowledge with regard to such gift deeds made by defendant No.1 Defendants No.2 and 3 claimed that valid mutation No. 6135 came to be attested in their favour on the basis of valid gift deed executed in their favour by defendant No. 1. Defendant No.4 by way of separate written statement raised the preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, limitation and estoppel and denied that defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 further stated that he had purchased 4 biswas of suit land, upon which valid and legal mutation No. 6138 was sanctioned and attested in his favour and as such, prayed that plaint having been filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned court below framed following issues:- "1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract directing defendant to execute sale deed of the land comprised in Khasra No.5930/5604/1382/1 as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not within time?OPD 3A. Whether the gift deed dated 29.6.2001 is wrong and illegal as alleged? OPP 3B. Whether the sale deed dated 12.7.2001 is wrong and illegal as alleged? OPP 3C. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land as claimed?OPP 3D.Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action ?OPP 3E. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPP 3B. Whether the sale deed dated 12.7.2001 is wrong and illegal as alleged? OPP 3C. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land as claimed?OPP 3D.Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action ?OPP 3E. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 4.Relief." 5. Subsequently, on the basis of evidence led on record by the respective parties, learned trial Court, dismissed the aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment dated 29.11.2006. Plaintiff, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Kullu, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 28.3.2008. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, laying therein challenge to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 6. This Court vide order dated 7.7.2008, admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2. "1.Whether the findings of the learned First Appellate Court with respect to limitation on the basis of agreement to sell above and by ignoring the receipts Ext. PW-1/A, Ext. PW-1/B and Ext. PW-1/C regarding balance payments is complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and law applicable to the facts of the case and such palpable erroneous and illegal and is not sustainable at all? 2.Whether the First Appellate Court being last Court of facts ought not to have decided the appeal on all issues and not on preliminary point of limitation? This has also vitiated the proceedings and resulted into passing of erroneous and illegal judgment? The finding of both the courts below on point of limitation is a result of complete misreading of oral and documentary evidence on record and mis-interpretation of law as applicable to the facts of the case?" 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the record of the case. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused evidence collected on record by the respective parties, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the record of the case. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused evidence collected on record by the respective parties, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel that impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, rather, this Court finds that both the courts below while dismissing the suit having been filed by the plaintiff, have dealt with evidence led on record by the respective parties in its right perspective and as such, it cannot be said that there is mis-reading of pleadings/evidence and law applicable to the facts of the case. Though in the case at hand, defendant No.1 by way of written statement categorically denied the factum with regard to the execution of agreement to sell dated 23.3.1995 (Ext.PW2/A), but learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has categorically held that defendant No.1 had executed aforesaid agreement for sale of suit land, which finding never came to be assailed by defendant No.1 and as such, same has attained finality. 9. Close scrutiny of judgments passed by the courts below clearly reveals that suit having been filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Since no specific challenge at any point of time came to be laid by the defendant with regard to finding returned by the court below on the point of execution of agreement to sell, this Court sees no reason to analyze the evidence available on record from that angle, rather this Court in the instant proceedings is only called upon to determine whether courts below have rightly held that suit having been filed by the plaintiff is barred by the limitation. Admittedly, as per own case set-up by the plaintiff, agreement to sell was executed on 23.3.1995, and as per agreement, sale deed was to be executed on or before 23.3.1998. In the case at hand, sale deed never came to be executed within the time frame stipulated in the agreement to sell and as such, suit, if any, for specific performance of contract ought to have been filed by the plaintiff within a period of three years from the date fixed for execution of sale deed i.e. 23.3.1998. In the case at hand, sale deed never came to be executed within the time frame stipulated in the agreement to sell and as such, suit, if any, for specific performance of contract ought to have been filed by the plaintiff within a period of three years from the date fixed for execution of sale deed i.e. 23.3.1998. But in the case at hand, civil suit came to be filed on 26.6.2002 i.e. beyond the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Article 54 of the Limitation Act . Suit, if any, for specific performance can be filed within a period of three years from the date fixed for execution of sale deed. 10. Shri Ajay Kumar, learned Senior counsel while making this Court to peruse evidence, be it ocular or documentary led on record, by the plaintiff made a serious attempt to persuade this Court, to agree with his contention that there is ample evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that time repeatedly came to be extended by the plaintiff on the request having been made by the defendant, who on various occasions even after expiry of date fixed in the agreement to sell, kept on receiving part payment towards the consideration. While referring to Ext.PW4/A, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned senior counsel, contended that defendant No.1 sent a letter through his advocate, praying therein for extension of time to execute the sale deed, which fact itself suggests that plaintiff was always ready and willing to purchase the suit land by making payment of balance consideration amount from defendant No.1. 11. Close scrutiny of document Ext.PW4/A suggests that letter was addressed to the plaintiff by Advocate Amar Chand Thakur, on behalf of the defendant Naru Ram, but defendant Naru Ram has categorically taken the stand that he at no point of time, authorized the advocate, to serve letter/notice on the plaintiff Girdhari Lal. Though, plaintiff with a view to prove the letter in question examined the advocate Amar Chand as PW4, who while identifying his signatures on notice in question categorically deposed that he had issued letter on the instructions of defendant Naru Ram, but defendant also led rebuttal evidence to dispute the correctness of aforesaid document and ultimately, matter came to be referred to the handwriting expert Shri IS. Rao, who subsequently in his report stated that he was not in a position to give definite opinion regarding the signatures of Naru Ram on this document. Otherwise also, this Court after having carefully perused Ext.PW4/A finds that if aforesaid statement having been made by Mr. A.C. Thakur Advocate (PW4), is presumed to be correct, plaintiff was required to get the sale deed executed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of letter dated 8.2.1999 Ext.PW4/A. However, in the case at hand, admittedly, suit by plaintiff came to be filed on 26.6.2002, and as such, this Court is of the view that statement, if any, of Amar Chand, Advocate (PW4), may not be of any help to the plaintiff as far as determination of the date for limitation is concerned. 12. Having carefully perused receipts Ext. PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, learned counsel, representing defendant No. 1 that there is nothing to suggest that by way of aforesaid receipts, defendant ever asked to extend the time for the performance of contract, rather these receipts only show that some amount came to be received by defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff. He further contended that bare perusal of aforesaid receipts nowhere suggests that amount, if any, paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 was towards the balance sale consideration. 13. Having carefully analyzed the evidence available on record, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of learned Senior counsel that finding returned by the courts below on the point of limitation is erroneous, rather same appears to be totally in conformity with the provision contained under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. 14. Similarly, courts below have rightly ignored receipts Ext. PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C, while dismissing the contention of plaintiff that defendant No.1 by issuing aforesaid receipts, had prayed for extension of time for performance of contact. This Court is also not persuaded to agree with learned Senior counsel Mr. 14. Similarly, courts below have rightly ignored receipts Ext. PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C, while dismissing the contention of plaintiff that defendant No.1 by issuing aforesaid receipts, had prayed for extension of time for performance of contact. This Court is also not persuaded to agree with learned Senior counsel Mr. Ajay Kumar, that first appellate court being last court of fact has failed to decide all issues because complete reading of judgment passed by the learned first appellate court leaves no scope for this court to conclude that first appellate Court has failed to decide all the issues raised in appeal, rather at the cost of repetition, this Court wishes to observe that first appellate Court while agreeing with finding returned by the learned trial Court has given its own findings. Hence, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no force in the argument of learned counsel representing the plaintiff that courts below have not read the evidence in its right perspective while determining the controversy at hand, rather this Court is of the view that courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and as such, there is no scope of interference, whatsoever by this Court. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. At this stage, Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, learned counsel, contended that this court has very limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence in the instant proceedings, especially in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. In this regard, to substantiate his aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , relevant para whereof reads as under:- "16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in ''A'' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the ''A'' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs'' right cannot be granted. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the ''A'' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs'' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained." 16. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the learned courts below cannot be interfered with unless same are found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings. In the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail, there is no perversity as such in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be upheld. 17. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the view that findings returned by the trial Court below, which were further upheld by the first appellate Court, do not warrant any interference of this Court as findings given on the issues framed by the trial Court below as well as specifically taken up by this Court to reach the root of the controversy appear to be based on correct appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, the appeal fails and dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.