Back
TARUN CHATTERJEE, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Sugani – Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Das – Respondent
Question 1? What is the requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 regarding readiness and willingness to perform the contract? Question 2? How does Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 determine the starting point of limitation for a suit for specific performance, particularly when no date fixed is fixed and when a date is fixed? Question 3? What is the standard for appellate interference in second appeals regarding substantial questions of law and the role of concurrent findings of fact?
Key Points: - The judgment discusses Section 16(c) and the need for the plaintiff to aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the contract. (!) (!) (!) - It explains that Section 16(c) is a personal bar and that relief depends on the plaintiff’s conduct, with multiple citations emphasizing non-formulaic pleading. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment analyzes Article 54 of the Limitation Act, holding that the three-year limitation starts from the date fixed for performance, or from when performance is refused if no date is fixed. (!) (!) (!) - It addresses that if no issue on readiness and willingness was framed, courts may err; the plaint must contain clear averments and evidence of readiness and willingness. (!) (!) (!) - It clarifies that second appeals are permissible only for substantial questions of law and outlines the proper formulation and scope of such questions. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’), by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the Appellate Court.
2. The factual background, as projected by the appellant in a nutshell is as follows :
An agreement to sell was executed between the appellant, herein and Mahadeo defendant No. 1 in the suit (since deceased) in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 13.12.1975. Out of the said sum Rs. 5,000/- was paid as earnest money on the date of agreement and the balance was payable on the date of the sale. Registration of the sale could not be done as admittedly there was a prohibition on sale of urban property at the relevant point of time. The agreement to sell was made on 13.12.1975. Defendant No. 1 Mahadeo executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 1 & 2 (defendant Nos. 2 & 3 in the suit) for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- allegedly on the basis of and agreement to sell dated 13.12.1975. On 3.7.1978 a notice was sent by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 dema
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
