Judgment: VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2022 in A.S.No.39 of 2018, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu at Gooty (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 27.03.2018 in O.S.No.74 of 2011, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal (“Trial Court” for short). 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.74 of 2011. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.74 of 2011 with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendants to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.39 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants in the above suit approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.74 of 2011, is as follows: The plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 are the sons of A. Masthanappa; 2 nd defendant is the son of 1 st defendant; 4 th defendant and 5 th defendants are the sons of 3 rd defendant. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.74 of 2011, is as follows: The plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 are the sons of A. Masthanappa; 2 nd defendant is the son of 1 st defendant; 4 th defendant and 5 th defendants are the sons of 3 rd defendant. In the year 1987, a partition was effected among A. Masthanappa, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and 3 and suit schedule property fell to the share of A. Masthanappa and after his demise, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 3 acquired the said property and on 22.04.2002 defendant Nos.1 and 3 along with their children i.e., defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 after receiving consideration of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff, executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and they are also agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff whenever demanded and since then, plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The revenue officials after confirmation with the defendants with regard to sale transaction, recognized title of plaintiff and mutated his name in the revenue records and issued record of rights and pattadar passbook. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and as defendant Nos.1 and 3 are his brothers, he believed them that they will not violate the terms of agreement of sale. Later, plaintiff sold Ac.0-50 cents out of schedule mentioned property to one Omkarappa and thereafter 1 st defendant has got issued a legal notice, dated 16.03.2011 to the plaintiff and in turn plaintiff sent a suitable reply and that the plaintiff suspected bonafides of defendants. On 30.05.2011, he got issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to execute a regular registered sale deed in his favour on 10.06.2011 and defendants having received the said notice, failed to comply and started trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. The 1 st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments in the plaint and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 to 5. 7. The 1 st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments in the plaint and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 to 5. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: They admitted about a partition took place and suit schedule property fell to the share of A. Masthanappa. Anjinamma and Jayamma are the daughters of Masthanappa and both of them alive and they succeed to the estate of Mashanappa. The 1 st defendant is also having four daughters viz., Nirmala, Masthanamma, Kavitha and Shyamala, besides 2 nd defendant. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sons of 3 rd defendant. The signatures on agreement of sale did not belong to them. They denied about the passing of consideration and delivery of possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff and they confirmed said sale before revenue officials and consented for mutation of plaintiff’s name in the revenue record. They received legal notice, dated 30.05.2011 got issued by the plaintiff. They are co-owners along with plaintiff for the suit schedule property and plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of specific performance and permanent injunction against them. The suit is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond three years from the date of agreement of sale. 8. During the pendency of the suit, 1 st defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.6 to 10 and also the 3 rd defendant died and his legal representative was brought on record as 11 th defendant. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief? The trial Court also framed the following additional issues on 14.03.2016: (1) Whether agreement of sale, dated 24.04.2002 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendants? (2) Whether plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (3) Whether plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit? (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 24.02.2002 as prayed for? The trial Court also framed the following additional issues on 30.10.2017: (1) Whether plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 24.02.2002 as prayed for? The trial Court also framed the following additional issues on 30.10.2017: (1) Whether plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (2) Whether 5 th defendant is minor by the date of agreement of sale, dated 22.04.2002 and if so whether said agreement of sale is lawful and binding on defendants? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined but no documents were marked. 11. The learned trial Judge after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.39 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court, wherein the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for specific performance of contract or not? 2) Whether there is necessity to interfere with the findings given by the trial court or not? 12. The learned First Appellate Judge after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above suit, filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. On hearing both sides counsel at the time of admission of the second appeal, on 25.07.2023 , this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the appeal suit in spite of the specific contention of the plaintiff that the suit is time barred and not within limitation, hit by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As the suit was filed for specific performance in the year 2011 whereas, the alleged agreement of sale is dated 24.04.2002? (2) Whether the entry of name in the revenue records confers title in favour of the plaintiff? As the suit was filed for specific performance in the year 2011 whereas, the alleged agreement of sale is dated 24.04.2002? (2) Whether the entry of name in the revenue records confers title in favour of the plaintiff? (3) Whether the Hon’ble Court was right in marking the document in as much as on a reading of the same, it is stated that possession was given to the respondent and without the stamp duty, the same is inadmissible? (4) Whether the Court below has exercised its power under Section 73 of the Indian E vidence Act, wherein the Court below ought to have compared the signatures more so when the very execution of the sale deed is denied? 14. Heard Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri P. Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 15. In a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot substantiate its own opinion for that of First Appellate Court unless the Court finds that the conclusions drawn by both the Courts are erroneous being, (i) contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law or (ii) contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court or (iii) based on inadmissible or no evidence. 16. The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below and if the First Appellate Court has exercises in its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in a second appeal. 17. The undisputed facts are both the parties are inter-related. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are sons of A. Masthanappa; 2 nd defendant is son of 1 st defendant and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sons of 3 rd defendant. The 1 st defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.6 to 10. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are sons of A. Masthanappa; 2 nd defendant is son of 1 st defendant and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sons of 3 rd defendant. The 1 st defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.6 to 10. It is also undisputed fact that there was a partition among Masthanappa and his sons i.e., plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 and in the said partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of Masthanappa and Masthanappa died intestate. 18. It is the specific case of the plaintiff after demise of their father, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 3 acquired the said property and on 22.04.2002 the defendant Nos.1 and 3 along with their children i.e., defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 after receiving consideration of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff executed an unregistered possessory agreement of sale and delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and they also agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff whenever the plaintiff demanded and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the same. 19. The agreement of sale under which the plaintiff possessed the plaint schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 5 is got exhibited as Ex.A.15. The signatures on agreement of sale are denied by the defendants, therefore, the primary duty is cast upon the plaintiff to prove Ex.A.15 agreement of sale. As per the case of the plaintiff after receiving Rs.70,000/- in those days in the year 2002 from the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 5 executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and delivered possession to the plaintiff with a promise to execute a regular registered sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiff. As stated supra, the original agreement of sale is got marked as Ex.A.15. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the recitals in Ex.A.15 go to show that the possession was given to the plaintiff and no stamp duty and penalty has been paid, therefore, the same is inadmissible. Ex.A.15 goes to show the stamp duty and penalty has been paid on Ex.A.15 before the District Registrar, the same is evidencing in Ex.A.1 challan. 20. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on his self testimony as P.W.1. Ex.A.15 goes to show the stamp duty and penalty has been paid on Ex.A.15 before the District Registrar, the same is evidencing in Ex.A.1 challan. 20. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on his self testimony as P.W.1. In order to discharge his burden, the plaintiff filed an application vide I.A.No.225 of 2017 under Order 1 Rule 16 and Section 151 of CPC to summon the attestors in Ex.A.15 agreement of sale viz., A. Narayana, G. Nageswar Rao and scribe Bheemanna and the said petition was allowed by the trial Court and on 16.12.2017, a memo was filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff before the trial Court that the first attestor-A. Narayana died and the scribe-Bhemmanna also died and the second attestor-Nageswar Rao was suffering with paralysis and taking treatment at Hyderabad and the same is recorded by the trial Court. In order to prove Ex.A.15 agreement of sale, the plaintiff examined the son of the first attestor-Narayana by name A. Ramachandra as P.W.2. He identified the signature of his father. He supported P.W.1 in all aspects. As stated supra, both the parties in the suit are closely inter-related and they belong to one family. As per the own case of the defendants, they are having cordial terms with the plaintiff as on the date of suit. It is not at all the case of the defendants that they are having enmity with the plaintiff. In fact, no suggestion was given to P.W.1 in cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendants that they are having enmity with P.W.1. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that in order to discharge the burden, the plaintiff failed to examine the attestors and scribe of Ex.A.15 agreement of sale. As stated supra, the first attestor and scribe died, to that effect, a memo was filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court, the same was not opposed by the defendants. No one can expect a dead person has to be brought to the Court to give evidence. The plaintiff also filed a memo before the trial Court stating that the second attestor is suffering with paralysis and undergoing treatment at Hyderabad and the same was not denied by the defendants. As stated supra, the defendants are not having enmity with the plaintiff as on the date of giving evidence itself. The plaintiff also filed a memo before the trial Court stating that the second attestor is suffering with paralysis and undergoing treatment at Hyderabad and the same was not denied by the defendants. As stated supra, the defendants are not having enmity with the plaintiff as on the date of giving evidence itself. The plaintiff and defendants are belonging to one family and the defendants are own brothers and brothers’ children of the plaintiff. It is well settled that there can be no straightjacket formula for the appreciation of oral evidence of the witnesses. The credibility of the witness is the paramount consideration for the Court. After passing the three legal tests viz., relevancy, admissibility, and competence of the witness, while considering the credibility of the witness, the Court has to consider various parameters so as to appreciate the oral evidence on the point by testing the same on the touch stone of two important yardsticks viz., the probabilities and surrounding circumstances among various other parameters. As noticed supra, the plaintiff and defendants belonged to same family and there are no enimical terms in between both the parties to the suit. It is also not the case of the defendants that they are having enmity with the plaintiff, due to such enmity, the plaintiff and P.W.2 deposed falsehood against them.P.W.2 is also no other than the relative of defendants. Since the first attestor and scribe are no more, to discharge his burden, the plaintiff examined the son of the first attestor as P.W.2. His evidence supports the case of the plaintiff. It is not at all the case of the defendants that they are having enmity with P.W.2, due to that P.W.2 deposed falsehood against them. 22. The date of Ex.A.15 agreement of sale is 22.04.2002. According to the plaintiff, on the date of agreement of sale itself, after receiving Rs.70,000/-, defendant Nos.1 to 5delivered possession of the plaint schedule property, the same is well supported by Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.5 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.A.4. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property prior to filing of the suit itself. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property prior to filing of the suit itself. Moreover, there was a clear admission by 4 th defendant i.e., D.W.2 that since 2002 till date their names were not reflected in the revenue records as land- lords or occupants and till date they did not take any steps to cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. 23. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 is a Village Revenue Officer at Guntakal and as per his evidence, P.W.1, defendant Nos.1 and 3 came to him and they have produced an agreement of sale and after perusing the same, he has mutated the name of P.W.1 in the revenue records and a pattadar passbook and title deed are also issued by the Tahsildar. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.5 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 clinchingly establishes the possession was delivered under Ex.A.15 agreement of sale to the plaintiff by defendant Nos.1 to 5. P.W.3 also supports the case of the plaintiff that the possession was delivered to the plaintiff. By giving cogent reasons, both the Courts below arrived same conclusion that Ex.A.15 agreement of sale is true and executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 5. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the above finding arrived by both the Courts below. The specific case of the plaintiff is that after confirmation with the defendants only, revenue officials entered the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. P.W.3 categorically deposed in his evidence that P.W.1, defendant Nos.1 and 3 came to him and they produced an agreement of sale and after perusing the same, the name of P.W.1 mutated in the revenue records. 24. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that mere entries of the name of the plaintiff in revenue records does not confer any title. No doubt, the mutation of entries in the revenue records does not confer any title. The specific case of the plaintiff is that from the date of Ex.A.15 agreement of sale, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. No doubt, the mutation of entries in the revenue records does not confer any title. The specific case of the plaintiff is that from the date of Ex.A.15 agreement of sale, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As stated supra, possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property is proved by producing Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.5 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4. P.W.3, Village Revenue Officer, also supports the case of the plaintiff. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the pattadar passbook and title deed were issued by the Tahsildar in the name of plaintiff. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly establishes after obtaining Ex.A.15 agreement of sale from the defendants, the plaintiff came into possession of the plaint schedule property and Ex.A.15 is proved. 25. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that Ex.A.15 agreement of sale is dated 22.04.2002 whereas the suit is filed by the plaintiff on 27.07.2011 and the suit is not filed by the plaintiff within three years from the date of Ex.A.15 agreement of sale, dated 22.04.2002 and that the suit is barred by limitation and the present suit is not at all maintainable. Article 54 of the Limitation Act deals with the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale suits; it begins to run the date fixed for performance or if no date is fixed when the plaintiff has noticed performance is refused. 26. Admittedly, no time is fixed for performance of the part of the contract. In the case on hand, the 1 st defendant issued a legal notice under Ex.A.6, dated 16.03.2011, the plaintiff issued Ex.A.8 legal notice to the defendants for demanding to execute a regular registered sale deed. Ex.A.9 to Ex.A.13 are served postal acknowledgements, those goes to show that the defendants received the said notice and kept quiet and the suit is filed on 27.07.2011, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the limitation starts from the date of refusal of the contract by the defendants itself from 16.03.2011, the present suit is filed on 27.07.2011. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the appellants that the suit is barred by limitation. By giving cogent reasons, both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the suit is filed within the period of limitation. 27. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the appellants that the suit is barred by limitation. By giving cogent reasons, both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the suit is filed within the period of limitation. 27. As per Ex.A.15 agreement of sale, after receiving Rs.70,000/- the defendant Nos.1 to 5 executed an agreement of sale with a promise to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as and when demanded by the plaintiff. Admittedly, time is not an essence of contract and no time limit is fixed for performance of the part of the contract. As stated supra, the plaintiff noticed about the refusal of the performance of the part of the contract by the defendants on 16.03.2011, the suit is filed on 27.07.2011, as such, the suit is filed within a period of limitation. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention taken by the appellants that the suit is barred by limitation, since time is not an essence of contract, limitation begins to run from the date of refusal of the contract i.e., 16.03.2011 onwards, the present suit is filed on 27.07.2011, therefore the suit is filed within a period of limitation. 28. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the entire evidence on record granted main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. The learned First Appellate Judge also confirmed the said finding given by the learned trial Judge on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. 29. The findings given by both the Courts below, in my considered view, remain unimpeachable from the evidence led by the parties. It cannot be said that the same are in any manner perverse or based on incorrect reading, application or interpretation of the statue, as such, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact and law recorded by both the Courts below. 30. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.