the relief of specific performance and granted the relief of refund of advance amount. The plaintiff has not challenged the refusal of the relief of specific performance by filing any appeal before the first appellate court. On the other hand, it is only the first defendant, challenged the decree for refund of the advance amount. Therefore, in so far as the plaintiff is concerned, he cannot canvass the correctness or otherwise of the judgment rendered by the trial court refusing the relief of specific performance before this court, while challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dismissing the suit in its entirety. Fairly, the learned counsel for the appellant has also conceded that the relief of specific performance is barred by limitation, since the suit itself came to be filed after the period of three years. However, it is his contention that for refund of the advance amount, Article 62 of the Limitation Act alone is to be applied, since a charge is created over the suit property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act.
