Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
A. Valliammai - Appellant
Versus
K.P. Murali and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2023 With Civil Appeal No. 5343 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 5344 of 2023 And Civil Appeal No. 5345 of 2023
Decided On : 12-09-2023
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 9 and Article 54 of Part II of Schedule – Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Limitation – Limitation period for filing suit for specific performance as three years from date fixed for performance and in alternative when no date is fixed, three years from date when plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused – Once limitation period has commenced, it continues to run, irrespective of any subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make application. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Impugned judgment by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, dated 20.12.2016, in Appeal Suit (MD) No. 63 of 2007, affirms the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tiruchirapalli, dated 28.12.2006, in O.S. No. 21 of 2004.
Findings of Court:
Limitation period of three years under second part of Article 54, which is from the date when the party had notice of the refusal by the other side, had expired when the suit for specific performance was filed on 27.09.1995. Suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2004 is barred by limitation. Impugned judgment and decree for specific performance, as affirmed by Division Bench, is set aside.
Result : Civil Appeals allowed.
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023.
1. I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023, for permission to take on record additional evidence in the nature of documents, are not opposed. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023 are allowed. The documents are taken on record. S. Nos. 2 – 12 in I.A. No. 1 of 2017 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-1– S-111[Exhibit S-1 – a true copy of the judgment dated 23.12.1992 passed by the district munsif court in O.S. No. 508 of 1991; Exhibit S-2 – a true copy of the lawyer's notice dated 11.07.1994; Exhibit S-3 – a true copy of the rejoinder notice dated 13.07.1994; Exhibit S-4 – a true copy of the judgment dated 12.06.2002 passed by the district munsif court in O.S. No. 1164 of 1994; Exhibit S-5 – a true copy of the deposition of PW-1 – plaintiff – Duraisamy, in O.S. No. 21 of 2004 dated 05.07.2004; Exhibit S-6 – a true copy of the deposition of the DW-1 – first defendant – K. Sriram in O.S. No. 21 of 2004 dated 07.09.2006; Exhibit S-7 – a true copy of the deposition of DW-2 – second defendant – Valliammai, in O.S. No. 21 of 2004 dated 15.09.2006; Exhibit S-8 – a true copy of the deposition of DW-3 – Sivakami in O.S. No. 21 of 2004 dated 26.10.2006; Exhibit S-9 – a true copy of the deposition of DW-4 – Singaram in O.S. No. 21 of 2004 dated 10.11.2006; Exhibit S-10 – a true copy of the sale deed dated 08.05.1995 along with the power of attorney deed dated 28.11.1994; Exhibit S-11 – a true copy of the notice dated 31.08.1991.], and S. Nos. 2 – 4 in I.A. No. 27407 of 2023 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-12 –S-142 [Exhibit S-12 – a true copy of the judgement/order dated 03.11.1989 passed in O.S. No. 787 of 85 and docket orders in O.S. No. 787 of 85 along with photocopy of the original; Exhibit S-13 – a true copy of the rejoinder notice sent on behalf of K. Sriram dated 31.08.1991; Exhibit S-14 – a true copy of the rejoinder reply sent on behalf of A. Valliammai dated 16.09.1991.].
C.A. Nos. 5342-5345 of 2023.
1. The impugned judgment by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, dated 20.12.2016, in Appeal Suit (MD) No. 63 of 2007, affirms the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tiruchirapalli, dated 28.12.2006, in O.S. No. 21 of 2004.
2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2023 is A. Valliammai, statedly owner of 11 acres of land situated at the west end of survey numbers 55/2B1 and 55/2B2 in 58, Agaram village, Tiruverambur sub-district, Trichi district,3[For short, “Suit Property”.], having inherited the same being the second wife of late Ayyamperumal. Civil Appeal Nos. 5343 of 2023, 5344 of 2023 and 5345 of 2023 are preferred by S. Jayaprakash and others, A. Jeyakumar and others, and S. Balasubramanian and others, who are subsequent purchasers having purchased portions of the Suit Property.
3. A. Valliammai had entered into an agreement to sell dated 26.05.1988, Exhibit A-1, with respondent no. 3 – K. Sriram, for the sale of the Suit Property at the rate of Rs.2,95,000/- per acre. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by K. Sriram to A. Valliammai as an advance. The balance sale consideration of Rs.31,45,000/- was required to be paid within one year from 26.05.1988, that is, by 26.05.1989. However, vide endorsement dated 26.05.1989, Exhibit A-3, the timeline for payment of the balance sale consideration and execution of the sale deed was extended by 6 months, that is, till 26.11.1989.
4. In order to decide these appeals, before we refer to the facts leading to the filing of the suit for specific performance, we would like to reproduce two clauses of the agreement to sell (Exhibit A-1). The clauses read :
“The under mentioned 4.40 acres in survey number 55/2B 1 which is in my name which is located in the sale property east to west shift to the east end, nort
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. Both entries appear to be standalone legal principles or observations without any indication of subsequent negative treatment or judicial disapproval based on the provided information.
[Followed / Affirmed / Good Law]
No cases explicitly marked as followed, affirmed, or recognized as good law. The first case provides a legal interpretation regarding the meaning of “date fixed” in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, which appears to be a settled point of law. The second case discusses equitable principles related to statutory compliance and limitation, which may be considered consistent with existing legal doctrine, but there is no explicit indication of judicial treatment.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
The first case clarifies a point about the interpretation of “date fixed,” which may be cited as a legal clarification or interpretation rather than a case that has been distinguished or overruled.
The second case discusses a principle that a vendor cannot take advantage of his own wrong in not complying with statutory provisions, which may be a principle that has been cited or distinguished in other cases, but no such treatment is indicated here.
Both cases lack explicit treatment indicators such as “overruled,” “reversed,” “criticized,” or “questioned.” Therefore, their current legal standing remains unclear based solely on this list. They could be good law or may have been subsequently overruled or distinguished, but no such information is provided.
In summary, based solely on the provided case law list, there are no cases identified as bad law or explicitly overruled. The treatment of these cases appears neutral and unambiguous from the given data, but without additional context or subsequent judicial treatment, their current legal standing cannot be definitively categorized beyond this.
**Source :** S. Brahmanand VS K. R. Muthugopal (D) - Supreme Court Panchanan Dhara VS Monmatha Nath Maity (dead) thr. L. Rs. - Supreme Court
(1) Suit for Specific Performance – Once limitation period has commenced, it continues to run, irrespective of any subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make application. (2) Refu....
The plaintiff's failure to file the suit within the limitation period and to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract resulted in dismissal of the specific performance claim.
A sale agreement signed solely by the vendor is enforceable, and no fixed date of performance in an agreement allows suit filing within three years of notice of refusal.
Contractual obligations in specific performance suits require timely action; failure to act within statutory limitation renders claims void.
In a suit for specific performance where no time is fixed, the limitation period begins upon notice of refusal. An unregistered sale agreement is admissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act, ....
The court ruled that a civil suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the refusal to perform, reinforcing that delay and lack of sufficient pleading detail bar such claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time for specific performance of a contract starts to run after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement, as per the provisions of Ar....
An unregistered agreement for the sale of immovable property is enforceable for specific performance provided the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness and pays substantial consideration, especi....
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
