JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 passed in R.A. No.52 of 2012 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property measures 20 guntas of land out of 10 acres 15 guntas of land in Survey No.192/1 of Angadi village. It is the case of the plaintiff that, Survey No.192/1 of Angadi Village totally measures 12 acres 35 guntas, including 2 acres 30 guntas of Kharab, was owned by the plaintiff and his mother Mallamma. 5. The plaintiff's mother Mallamma died on 23.08.2006. During the lifetime of Mallamma, out of the said property, the plaintiff and his mother sold 10 guntas each to one A.K. Chandrasekhar, A.M. Dyavappa, A.M. Erappa, A.V. Manjunath, A.V. Ahithkumar, Smt. Hoovamma, A.B. Suresh, A.K. Nagaraj, A.K. Padmanabha and Rajashekhara. The remaining extent of 10 acres 15 guntas of land including 2 acres 3 guntas of Kharab was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff is cultivating the same with the coffee, cardamom and banana. The plaintiff has constructed a residential house which is in this 10 acres 15 guntas of land and the khata was changed in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his mother. 7. The plaintiff and his mother filed a suit in O.S. No.40 of 2004 seeking a relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that under the Agreement of Sale dated 18.10.1981, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit came to be dismissed by holding that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property under the Sale Agreement dated 18.10.1981. The defendant is in wrongful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property. The said suit came to be dismissed by holding that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property under the Sale Agreement dated 18.10.1981. The defendant is in wrongful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property. The defendant denied to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for possession. 8. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than five decades. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right over the kharab portion in Survey No.192/1. It is contended that the defendant is suffering from periodic insanity due to mental illness. The plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant and has represented that he will execute a sale deed in favour of the defendant regarding a portion of land in Survey No.192/1 and executed a Sale Agreement dated 18.10.1981. But, the plaintiff did not execute a registered sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of possession. Further, the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 9. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner and possessor of suit land? 2. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendant is in possession of 20 Gs. of land i.e., suit schedule land under void agreement? 3. Whether the defendant proves that since last 50 years, his parents and himself are in possession of 1 acres of land in Sy. No. 192/1 of Angadi village? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for? 5. Whether the Court fees is paid is proper and sufficient? 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? 7. What order or decree?" 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10. 11. In rebuttal, the wife of the defendant was examined as DW1 and marked 18 documents as Exhibits D1 to D18. 12. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? 7. What order or decree?" 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10. 11. In rebuttal, the wife of the defendant was examined as DW1 and marked 18 documents as Exhibits D1 to D18. 12. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the ocular and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative; issue Nos.2, 4 and 5 in the negative; issue Nos.3 and 6 in the affirmative and issue No.7 as per the final order. Consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 24.03.2012. 13. The plaintiff aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.14 of 2009 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.52 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru. 14. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves his absolute title and ownership over the suit property and the defendant's unauthorized occupation of the same? 2. Whether the impugned judgment of the trial Court is against law, fact, evidence and probabilities of the case and liable to be intervened by this Court? 3. What order or decree?" 15. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative; point No.3 - as per the final order and the appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 10.06.2013 and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.14 of 2009 dated 24.03.2012 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mudigere. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over the actual and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of the judgment. The prayer of the plaintiff for mesne profits and accounts was rejected. 16. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.52 of 2012, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 18. The prayer of the plaintiff for mesne profits and accounts was rejected. 16. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.52 of 2012, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 18. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that there is no dispute regarding the plaintiff and his mother are the owners of the suit schedule property and it is contended that they have agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and executed a sale agreement dated 08.10.1981 by receiving a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The defendant could not get the sale deed executed on the ground that the defendant was suffering from periodic insanity. He submitted that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property, which was delivered by the plaintiff on part performance of the contract for more than five decades. 19. He also submitted that the plaintiff and his mother filed a suit in O.S. No.40 of 2004 against the defendant for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed. He also submitted that though the sale agreement was executed on 18.10.1981, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No.14 of 2009 i.e., in 2009. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court. The impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary, erroneous and perverse. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff has admitted that though initially the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, but in the written statement the defendant has pleaded that the defendant has agreed to purchase the suit schedule property from the plaintiff and his mother in 1981, and the defendant paid Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff executed a sale agreement. He submitted that though the defendant has admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, he has not pleaded regarding the adverse possession. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff, based on a title for possession, is within time, as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 21. He submitted that though the defendant has admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, he has not pleaded regarding the adverse possession. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff, based on a title for possession, is within time, as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 21. The First Appellate Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indira vs. Armugam AIR 1999 SC 1549 , has rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within time. 22. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 23. This Court, by order dated 27.08.2014, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: " When the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent for possession holding that the suit is barred by time, whether the First Appellate Court was justified in granting a decree for possession though the claim is said to have been barred by time? " Reg. Substantial Question of Law: 24. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession. The plaintiff to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1. He has deposed that the plaintiff and his mother were the owners of the suit schedule property i.e., the land bearing Survey No.192/1 measuring 20 guntas of land out of 10 acres 15 guntas. Sy.No.192/1 totally measures 12 acres 35 guntas, including 2 acres of 30 guntas of kharab. Out of the said land, they have sold 10 guntas each to the various purchasers under a registered sale deeds. It is contended that the mother of the plaintiff died on 23.08.2006. After her demise, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has constructed a residential house in the suit schedule property. The defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 25. The plaintiff and his mother had filed a suit in O.S. No.40 of 2004. In the said suit, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of a contract under the sale agreement dated 18.10.1981. The said suit came to be dismissed. 26. 25. The plaintiff and his mother had filed a suit in O.S. No.40 of 2004. In the said suit, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of a contract under the sale agreement dated 18.10.1981. The said suit came to be dismissed. 26. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff produced the documents. Exhibits P1 and P2 are the RTC extracts of land bearing Survey No.192/1, which shows that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property; Exhibit P3 is the Index of Land; Exhibit P4 is the Record of Rights; Exhibit P5 is the Sketch; Exhibit P6 is the certified copy of the Assessment extract of land; Exhibit P7 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.40 of 2004 filed by the plaintiff and his mother for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant; Exhibit P8 is the certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendant in O.S. No.40 of 2004, wherein the defendant has contended that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of a contract under a sale agreement; Exhibit P9 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S. No.40 of 2004; Exhibit P-10 is the certified copy of the decree in O.S. No.40 of 2004. 27. During the cross-examination of PW1, it is suggested that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of a contract, wherein the plaintiff executed a sale agreement in favour of a defendant by receiving Rs. 5,000/-. The said suggestion was denied by PW1. 28. In rebuttal, the wife of the defendant was examined as DW1 as the power of attorney holder of the defendant. She deposed that the plaintiff and his mother executed a sale agreement in favour of the defendant by receiving a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff in part performance of a contract. The defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the said contract. 29. She also deposed the plaintiff and his mother filed a suit in O.S. No.40 of 2004 for the relief of permanent injunction. The defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the said contract. 29. She also deposed the plaintiff and his mother filed a suit in O.S. No.40 of 2004 for the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed and while dismissing the suit, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff and his mother have executed a sale agreement agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of a contract. 30. To prove his defence, the defendant produced the documents, Exhibit D1 is the general power of attorney which discloses that the defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of DW1 authorising her to depose on behalf of the defendant; Exhibit D2 is the certified copy of the sale deed; Exhibit D3 is the certified copy of the sketch; Exhibit D4 is the kharab uther; Exhibit D5 is the certified copy of the sketch; Exhibit D6 is the affidavit; Exhibits D7 to D17 are the RTC extracts; Exhibit D18 is the agreement which discloses that the plaintiff and his mother executed an agreement to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and received Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant; 31. DW-1 during the cross examination, admitted that the defendant has not enforced Exhibit D18 and filed a suit for specific performance of contract. 32. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the plaintiff and his mother over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and his mother executed a sale agreement as per Exhibit D18 to the extent of 20 guntas in Survey No.192/1. The said agreement came to be executed on 18.10.1981. The defendant has not taken any steps to enforce the agreement dated 18.10.1981. 33. From the perusal of Exhibit D18, there is a recital in the sale agreement regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant to the extent of 20 guntas. 34. To claim the protection under Section 53A [53A. The defendant has not taken any steps to enforce the agreement dated 18.10.1981. 33. From the perusal of Exhibit D18, there is a recital in the sale agreement regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant to the extent of 20 guntas. 34. To claim the protection under Section 53A [53A. Part performance.—Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer as not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.] of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the defendant must establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 35. Admittedly, in the instant case, the defendant has not produced any record to establish that he had complied with the provisions of Section 16(c)[16. Personal bars to relief.—Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person— (a) xxx (c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (c),— (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; (ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.] of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The defence of the defendant is, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 36. Admittedly, though the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property since from the date of execution of a sale agreement i.e., Exhibit D18, the defendant has never asserted that he had perfected his claim to own the suit schedule property by adverse possession. 37. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation prescribed, when the suit is for possession of immoveable property based on a title, the 12 years countdown begins when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. 38. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indira vs. Armugam , AIR 1999 SC 1549 , while interpreting Article 65 of the Limitation Act, held that in a suit for possession, once the plaintiff's title is established, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited unless the defendant pleads and proves the adverse possession. 39. Admittedly, in the instant case, the defendant never asserted that he had perfected the title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The defendant did not enforce the agreement Exhibit D18 by filing a suit for specific performance of a contract till date. 40. As observed above, the defendant has failed to prove the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act to protect his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 41. Thus, the said aspect was considered by the First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.31 to 33 of the impugned judgment and rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within time and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 42. The First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence placed on record and held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within time and decreed the suit. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 43. 42. The First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence placed on record and held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within time and decreed the suit. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 43. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the affirmative. 44. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed (ii) The judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 passed in R.A. No.52 of 2012 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru is hereby confirmed (iii) No order as to the costs. (iv) Pending IAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly.