IMPORTANT POINT
Specific performance of sale of property cannot be denied on ground of unexplained delay in filing suit without framing specific issue and findings thereon as to whether there has been unexplained delay on the part of plaintiff in taking recourse to law in filing suit, though suit in filed within prescribed period of limitation.

ORDER

The plaintiff in the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale of immovable property, filed this appeal assailing the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in F.A. No. 486 of 1980 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court, decreed the suit in part and granted the alternative relief sought in the plaint for refund of the consideration paid and awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- with interest as damages to the plaintiff. The High Court declined to grant the plaintiff s prayer for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

2. The appellant filed the Suit No. 123 of 1978 in the court of civil judge, Saharanpur on 1.6.1978, seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale of the suit property or in the alternative for a decree for refund of the consideration money and damages of Rs. 5000/- and other consequential reliefs.

3. The case of the plaintiff shortly stated is that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant on 10th of January, 1975 for sale of the suit property in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 31,350/- with the stipulation inter alia that the defendant will take steps for obtaining permission for sale of the property under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 and on obtaining such permission, will intimate the plaintiff and after receipt of such intimation, the plaintiff will take steps for payment of the balance consideration money and for execution of the sale deed within five months. The further case of the plaintiff was that though he was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant on the plea of pendency of proceeding before the Authority, under the Act delayed, execution of the document and subsequently declined to execute the sale deed.

4. The case of the defendant, shorn of unnecessary details, is that she obtained permission for sale of the suit property on 18th of December, 1975, thereafter she approached the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed, which the plaintiff failed to comply and subsequently informed her that he was not interested in purchasing the property.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed six issues including;

(i) whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract since the date of contract and on the date of the suit?

(ii) Whether the defendant committed breach of the agreement of sale in respect of the property in dispute?

6. The trial court answered these issues and other relevant issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for specific performance of contract.

7. In the appeal filed by the defendant, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and declined relief of specific performance of contract solely on the ground of unexplained delay. The court took the view that there was no justification shown for the delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing the suit after such a long lapse of time and therefore the relief of specific performance of contract could be denied to him, though the suit was filed within the period of limitation. However, the High Court, granted the alternative relief of refund of the consideration paid and for damages of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

8. It is not disputed before us that the question of delay is a relevant consideration in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property. The court is to consider the question while taking a decision on the point, whether the relief of specific performance of the contract of sale should be granted to the plaintiff. In this connection we may notice the decision of this Court in K.S. Vidyanadam and & Ors. v. Vairavan (JT 1997 (2) SC 375), and Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi (Smt.) and Others, (JT 2000 (8) SC 59) in which this Court observed :

"The first ground which the High Court took note of is the delay in filing the suit. It may be apt to bear in min