Advocates:
P.Mahale, P.R.RAMASESHESH.S.PARIHARHAR, SANTOSH HEGDE

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. The case involves a dispute over an agreement to sell property, with issues concerning cancellation, possession, and specific performance of the contract (!) .

2. The appellant had entered into an agreement to sell property and paid an advance, but the sale was not finalized within the stipulated period, leading to a notice of cancellation and forfeiture of the advance amount (!) (!) .

3. The trial court held that the agreement was canceled due to the defendant's failure to perform within the agreed time, and it directed the refund of the advance amount along with damages, rejecting the defendant’s claim of part performance and improvements (!) .

4. The appellate court affirmed that the time was not the essence of the contract and that the appellant was justified in terminating the agreement. It also ordered the defendant to pay the remaining consideration amount with interest and to execute the sale deed (!) .

5. The High Court, however, dismissed the suit for specific performance, citing that the conditions under which such relief could be granted, especially under the relevant statutory provisions, were not satisfied. The court emphasized that the suit was barred by limitation and that the appellant had clearly indicated her intention to cancel the agreement, thereby precluding the grant of specific performance (!) (!) .

6. The High Court also observed that the defendant had obtained possession of the property shortly after the agreement and claimed improvements, but the evidence was insufficient to establish possession in pursuance of the contract, which affected the applicability of the doctrine of part performance (!) (!) .

7. The Court noted that the power to mould reliefs under procedural rules does not permit overriding statutory limitations, and thus the decree for deposit and sale execution was not sustainable (!) .

8. The Court recognized the need to consider the cross appeal and the fact that the defendant had been in possession for a long period, during which he enjoyed the property without full payment, and directed interim compensation for use and occupation during the pending proceedings (!) (!) .

9. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside, with the matter remitted for reconsideration on the merits, ensuring that the case is disposed of expeditiously (!) .

10. The appellant expressed willingness to settle the matter by offering a substantial sum, but the respondents declined, maintaining their stance (!) .

11. The case underscores that a suit for specific performance must be filed within the statutory limitation period and that the conditions for granting such relief under the law must be strictly met. It also clarifies that procedural powers cannot override statutory restrictions (!) (!) .

12. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was awarded interim compensation for use and occupation of the property, which was to be paid regularly until final disposal (!) .

13. The final direction emphasizes the importance of proper consideration of all appeals and cross appeals together and the need for a prompt resolution of such disputes (!) .

14. Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory limitations, the proper invocation of doctrines such as part performance, and the procedural constraints on courts in granting specific performance relief.