2016 Supreme(SC) 591

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Madina Begum & Anr. – Appellants
versus
Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6687 OF 2016
Decided On : 01-08-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
If no definite calendar date is fixed for performance of an act, limitation of three years will start from the date of knowledge of the aggrieved party.
The first appellate court has to decide all the issues in the suit.

Headnote:(a) Limitation Act, 1963 – Schedule 1, Article 54 – ‘Date fixed’ – Means a definite calendar date fixed for doing a particular act – If the date is fixed for the performance of an agreement, then non-compliance with the agreement on the date would give a cause of action to file a suit for specific performance within three years from the date so fixed – But when no such date is fixed, the limitation of three years would begin when the plaintiff has notice that the defendant has refused the performance of the agreement – Instantly, agreement between Gulab Bai and Madina Begum not specifying a calendar date as the date fixed for the performance of the agreement – Hence limitation would begin from the date of knowledge – High Court erred in law. (Para 19, 20, 22)

       (2009) 5 SCC 462; (2015) 5 SCC 223 – Relied upon

       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – High Court deciding the first appeal only preliminary issue of limitation – Not adverting to other issues – Impermissible – First appellate court has to decide all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. (Para 24, 25)

       (2015) 1 SCC 391; (2001) 4 SCC 756 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The land in dispute in this appeal is 1.63 acres of agricultural land bearing khasra nos. 438, 439, 440 and 456 (total area being 2.13 acres) in Patwari Halka No. 26 Gram Amkhera, Tehsil and District Jabalpur.

       There was a dispute about the title of the entire aforesaid land and to resolve that dispute, Gulab Bai claiming to be the owner and in possession of the entire land, filed Suit. The defendants in the suit were Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh. The prayer made by Gulab Bai in her plaint was for a declaration with regard to her title and possession. She also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh from interfering with her possession.

       The suit was decreed in favour of Gulab Bai and thereafter on 3rd September, 2001 she entered into an agreement to sell 1.63 acres of agricultural land being the disputed property to Madina Begum. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 4,89,000/-out of which an advance of Rs. 1,25,000/-was paid by Madina Begum to Gulab Bai. This fact is recorded in the agreement to sell.

       On coming to know that Gulab Bai had agreed to sell the disputed land to Madina Begum an appeal was filed by Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the decree.

       On 16th November, 2001 Gulab Bai executed a Will (which was registered) appointing Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey (respondents herein) as her executors. The Will mentioned that upon her demise, her agricultural land except 1.63 acres will devolve on Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey and in the event of her death before the registration of the sale deed it would be their responsibility to execute and register the sale deed in favour of Madina Begum. Gulab Bai passed away on 2nd January, 2002.

       Thereafter,the first appeal filed by Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh was dismissed and the decree passed by the High Court attained finality.

       Thereafter Madina Begum required Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey to execute the sale deed but they did not take any steps in this regard. On the contrary, on or about 2nd August, 2008 the land in dispute was mutated in the name of Anita Jain pursuant to a sale made in her favour by Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Devendra Prasad Pandey.

       Madina Begum filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement.

       The defendants raised a contention that the suit was barred by limitation.

       The Trial Court decided the issue of limitation in favour of Madina Begum but dismissed the suit on merits.

       The Division Bench hearing the first appeal filed by Madina Begum did not go into the merits of the dispute but only adverted to the issue of limitation and since it was found that the institution of the suit was barred by time (contrary to the conclusion of the Trial Court) there was no necessity of considering the merits of the case.

       Finding of the Court:

       If no definite calendar date is fixed for performance of an act, limitation of three years will start from the date of knowledge of the aggrieved party.

       The first appellate court has to decide all the issues in the suit.