Statutory charge on advance money in a sale agreement brings a refund claim within Article 62 limitation.

A buyer's claim for refund of advance money paid under an agreement for sale was treated as a claim to enforce payment of money secured by a statutory charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, so Article 62 of the Limitation Act applied and the suit was within limitation. The court also accepted proof of execution of the agreement through the attesting witness and scribe, and held that the defendants' denial of signature, consideration, and genuineness was not supported by independent evidence. The plaintiff's entitlement to refund was therefore established, and the decree for refund was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for refund of advance money under an agreement for sale was governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act in view of the statutory charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and was within limitation. (ii) Whether the plaintiff had proved the agreement for sale and entitlement to refund notwithstanding the defendants' denial of execution and consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for refund of advance money under an agreement for sale was governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act in view of the statutory charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and was within limitation.

Analysis: Article 54 governs suits for specific performance and provides a three-year period, while Article 62 governs suits to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property and allows twelve years from when the money becomes due. Under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a buyer has a statutory charge for purchase money properly paid in anticipation of delivery. The advance paid under the agreement therefore attracted a charge, and the refund claim could not be treated as governed by the limitation applicable to specific performance.

Conclusion: The refund claim was governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act and was within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff had proved the agreement for sale and entitlement to refund notwithstanding the defendants' denial of execution and consideration.

Analysis: The agreement was marked in evidence and supported by the attesting witness and the scribe. The first defendant did not dispute his signature but alleged misuse of blank papers and absence of consideration. Once the plaintiff adduced primary evidence of execution, the burden shifted to the defendants to establish their contrary case. The defendants failed to adduce independent evidence sufficient to dislodge the plaintiff's case.

Conclusion: The agreement and the plaintiff's entitlement to refund were proved.

Final Conclusion: The lower appellate court's dismissal of the suit was unsustainable, and the trial court's decree granting refund of the advance amount was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A buyer's claim for refund of advance money paid under an agreement for sale, where a statutory charge arises under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act and not by the limitation applicable to specific performance.

---