Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
P. Daivasigamani - Appellant
Versus
S. Sambandan - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9006 of 2011
Decided on : 12-10-2022
(A) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Even though time is not considered as essence of contract in case of immoveable property and that suit could be filed within three years as provided in Article 54 of Limitation Act, respondent-plaintiff had to perform his part of contract within reasonable time having regard to term of agreement prescribing time limit – Time limit prescribed in agreement cannot be ignored on the ground that time was not made essence of agreement – Suit having been filed by respondent well within prescribed time limit under Article 54 of Limitation Act, respondent could not have been non-suited on the ground of suit being barred by limitation – Rule of equity that exists in England, does not apply in India – So long as a suit for specific performance is filed within period of limitation, delay cannot be a ground to refuse relief of specific performance to plaintiff. [Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 16(c); Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54] (Paras 10, 11and 11)
(B) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Specific Performance of contract, may in the discretion of court, be enforced, when act agreed to be done, was such that compensation in money for its non-performance would not afford adequate relief and that breach of a contract to transfer immoveable property could not be adequately relieved by compensation in money – Specific performance of a contract could not be enforced in favour of a person, who failed to aver and prove that he had performed or had always been ready and willing to perform essential terms of contract which were to be performed by him – It could also not be enforced in favour of a person who failed to aver in plaint performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform contract according to its true construction – Readiness and willingness are not one, but two separate elements – Readiness means capacity of plaintiff to perform contract which would include financial position to pay purchase price – Willingness refers to intention of plaintiff as a purchaser to perform his part of contract – Willingness is inferred by scrutinizing conduct of plaintiff/purchaser, including attending circumstances. [Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 20] (Paras 14 and 15)
(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 20 – Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Offer of plaintiff/purchaser in writing and time and occasion when offer to pay balance amount to defendant/seller is an important factor which would matter when court examines question of discretion – There is distinction between limitation and delay and laches – Limitation is a ground for dismissing a suit even if plaintiff is otherwise entitled to specific performance, while delay operates to determine discretion and exercise under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, even if suit is not dismissed on account of limitation – Several aspects have to be considered when court, in terms of Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, exercises discretion, guided by judicial principles, sound and reasonable. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 196 of 2002, whereby the High Court has allowed the said appeal, modified the decree passed by Trial Court and decreed the said suit by granting the prayer for specific performance and also for permanent injunction against the present appellant (original defendant) in respect of the suit property.
Findings of Court:
Having regard to fact that the agreement in question was entered into between the parties in October 1989, and considering the steep rise in the prices of land, interest of justice would be met if the respondent is directed to pay some more amount. Appellant had enjoyed the possession of the suit land all through out. In facts and circumstances of the case, respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rupees One Crore in Trial Court towards sale consideration, over and above amount that might have been deposited by him, within a period of eight weeks from today. On such deposit being made, appellant shall execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent and shall also be at liberty to withdraw the said amount deposited by the respondent.
Result : Appeal dismissed with directions.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 196 of 2002, whereby the High Court has allowed the said appeal, modified the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in O.S. 212 of 1993, and decreed the said suit by granting the prayer for specific performance and also for permanent injunction against the present appellant (original defendant) in respect of the suit property.
2. The respondent (original plaintiff) had filed the suit in the Trial Court seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 05.10.1989, against the appellant (original defendant) and had prayed in the alternative for refund of the earnest (advance) money with interest, and also for the compensation. The respondent had also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the appellant – defendant from alienating or transferring the suit property to any third party. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit granting prayer for refund of the earnest money with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and dismissed the suit so far as other prayers were concerned, vide the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2002.
3. The short facts given rise to the present appeal are that the appellant Mr. P. Daivasigamani was the owner of the suit land i.e., the land to an extent of 1 acre out of 1.80 acre of wetland comprised in survey nos. 287 and 288, situated in No. 85 Ayanambakkam, District Ambattur. He had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with the respondent Shri S. Sambandan on 05.10.1989. The appellant had agreed to sell the said land for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-. On the date of execution of the agreement, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of earnest money as part of sale consideration. The time for completion of sale transaction was stipulated to be 6 months in the said agreement. As per the case of the respondent, though he had periodically contacted the appellant requesting him to execute the sale deed, and had shown his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the appellant failed to respond or to perform his part of the contract. The respondent thereafter vide the letter dated 17.03.1990 sent by registered post, called upon the appellant to execute a deed of power of attorney and to conclude the said transaction, however there was no response from the appellant to the said letter. The respondent thereafter again sent a notice through his lawyer on 26.03.1990, to the appellant which was returned with an endorsement “refused”. The respondent thereafter caused a public notice published in the Tamil daily “Dhina Thanthi” on 02.05.1990 and in English daily “Indian Express” on 06.05.1990, informing the public at large not to enter into any sale transaction with the appellant in respect of the suit property. Despite the said efforts having been made by the respondent, the appellant failed to fulfill his obligation under the agreement. The respondent-plaintiff thereafter filed the suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement.
4. The suit was contested by the appellant-defendant by filing the written statement. The appellant while admitting the execution of the agreement in question had denied the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- as contended by the respondent. The appellant also denied the readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent to perform his part of the contract. The appellant also denied to have received the letter dated 17.03.1990 sent by the respondent by registered post and also the notice dated 26.03.1990 sent by the respondent through his lawyer.
5. The Trial Court had framed as many as seven issues, pursuant to which the respondent-plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and adduced the documents at Ex. A1 to A7. The appellant-defendant also examined himself as DW-1, however had not adduced any documentary evid
Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – There is distinction between limitation and delay and laches.
Agreement to Sell – In a suit for specific performance of agreement, it is for Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement – Where a certain amount....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as mandated by Sect....
Delay in filing a suit for specific performance is insufficient to deny relief if the contract is within the statutory limitation period and the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to pe....
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
The court held that time is of the essence in contracts for the sale of land, and undue delay in filing for specific performance can negate entitlement to relief.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract's terms, especially when time is considered essential, otherwise relief can be denied.
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
