JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Kaushalya Devi respondent herein inherited property in dispute from her mother. She by agreement dated 2nd June, 1980 agreed to sell 104 Kanals and 12 marlas of land in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid to her as earnest money. The landlady further postulated that the sale deed qua 52 kanals and 6 marlas of land shall be executed on or before 1st June, 1981 and for the remaining land measuring 52 kanals and 6 marlas on or before 31st August, 1981. The agreement further provided that in case the purchaser failed to get the sale deeds executed by the date fixed the agreement shall stand cancelled and the earnest money forfeited. Undisputedly, the sale deed was not executed by Kaushalya Devi in favour of Phool Chand plaintiff either on or before 1st June, 1981 or 31st August, 1981. Mutation of inheritance in favour of Kaushalya Devi was sanctioned on 14th June, 1986. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit for specific performance of agreement on 10th March, 1987. Defendant-Kaushalya Devi resisted the suit and during the pendency of the. suit, she sold the property in question in favour of Vandna and Dhan Devi defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit is barred by time. Trial Court relying on the fact that mutation had been sanctioned on 14th June, 1986, came to the conclusion that the suit filed on 2nd March, 1987 was within limitation and consequently decreed the suit. On appeal, learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the clauses in the agreement provided for registration of sale deeds on 1st June, 1981 and 31st August, 1981 and irrespective of the fact that mutation was sanctioned on 14th June, 1986, the earlier clauses in the agreement were to prevail and, therefore, the period of limitation of three years is to be counted from 31st August, 1981 and not from 14th June, 1986. The appellate Court thus concluded that the suit is barred by time. It consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is in this situation, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
2. Upon notice of motion, the defendant-respondents have put in appearance.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the suit filed on 10th March, 1987 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 2nd June, 1980 was within limitation as the period of limitation is to start from 14th June, 1986, the date when mutation was sanctioned in favour of Kaushalya Devi. The argument was raised/on the strength of a sentence appearing in the concluding portion of the agreement which, when translated-into English, would read, “I promise that I shall get the mutation to the estate of Lila Wati sanctioned at an early date and execute sale deed after sanctioning of mutation”. The contention in my opinion has no merit and has rightly been rejected by the lower appellate Court. The agreement, as already noticed, is dated 2nd June, 1980. The earlier part of the agreement specifically and categorically provides that the sale deed in respect of land measuring 52 kanals and 6 marlas shall be executed on or before 1st June, 1981 and sale deed for the balance land measuring 52 kanals and 6 marias shall be executed on or before 31st August, 1981. The agreement further provides that qua the first sale deed which was to be executed on or before 1st June, .1981, the entire sale consideration shall be received at the time of execution of the sale deed and the earnest money shall be adjusted at the time of execution of the second sale deed, and in case the purchaser fails to get the sale deed executed by 1st June, 1981, the execution shall stand cancelled and the earnest money shall also stand forfeited. In the presence of the above clause in the agreement, it is difficult to conclude that the sale deeds were to be got executed after sanctioning of the mutation. Moreover, the mutation does not confer any title as, succession never remains in abeyance. On the day when Kaushalya Devi agreed to sell the land in favour of the plaintiff by agreement dated 2nd June, 1980, there was no obstacle in her way to execute the sale deed even in the absence of mutation having been sanctioned. Mutation only relates to the record of rights and it does not confer any title on the parties. Thus, I have no hesitation to conclude that the suit could at the most be filed on or before 31st August, 1984 and the suit having been filed on 10th March, 1987 was clearly barred by time. The finding of the lower appellate Court in that behalf is hereby affirmed.
4. The agreement in this case was entered into between the parties on 2nd June, 1980 and the present suit, even if it be taken to be within limitation, has been filed on 10th March, 1987 i.e. after a period of about seven years. It is a matter of common knowledge that prices of the land are rising everyday and it was expected of the plaintiff to take steps or to persuade the defendants to get the mutation sanctioned at an early date. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the plaintiff took steps in that behalf to ensure that the mutation is sanctioned at any early date. He awaited for a period of seven years before filing the suit and in this situation, the observations made by the Apex Court in K. S. Vidyanandam and Ors. v. Vairavan, (1997)3 S.C.C. 1 may be read with advantage. It was held by the Supreme Court as under:-
“Even where time is not of essence of the contract, the plaintiff must perform his part of the contract within a reasonable time and reasonable time should be determined by looking at all the surrounding circumstances including the express terms of the contract and the nature of the property.”
5. In the circumstances, it has to be concluded that it will be totally inequitable to grant the relief of specific performance after such a long time. In this view of the matter, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.