Specific Performance of Contract

ORDER :

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Both the original parties to the agreement to sell being dead, are now represented through their Legal Representatives (LRs). Appellants are LRs of the defendant whereas the Respondents are the LRs of the plaintiff.

4. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in Second Appeal No.1574 of 1984 by which the second appeal filed by the respondents was allowed; judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside, and; judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed and restored.

THE FACTUAL PRISM:

5. An Agreement to Sell (hereinafter referred to as “ATS”) was executed in favour of the respondents by the appellants on 31.07.1975. The ATS envisioned that the appellants had to apply for permission to sell the property within eight days and upon permission being received, the same was to be intimated to the respondents and the Sale Deed was to be executed within 15 days from receipt of such intimation by the respondents. Earnest money of Rs.1,000/- was paid out of the total sale consideration of Rs.6,000/-. The appellants did not apply for any permission to sell which led to the respondents filing Suit No. 5 of 1981 on 01.01.1981 for specific performance of the ATS. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 08.03.1982. The appellants filed Appeal No.118 of 1982 which was allowed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.05.1984. The respondents thereafter filed Second Appeal No.1574 of 1984 which was allowed by the High Court on 02.04.2010. The appellants then carried the case to this Court, which remanded the matter to the High Court. On remand, the High Court again allowed the Second Appeal by its judgment dated 18.07.2018, reversing the finding(s) of the First Appellate Court. The High Court’s judgment dated 18.07.2018 is impugned herein.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court had totally mis-appreciated the facts and law while decreeing the suit. It was stated that the First Appellate Court, after appreciation of the facts in their correct perspective and applying the law to the same, rightly reversed the Trial Court’s view, and dismissed the suit. It was contended that the High Court without giving any cogent reasons, on wrong appreciation of the material/facts and law, had reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel submitted that our interference was called for. It was contended that the First Appellate Court had rightly come to the conclusion that in the background of the various clauses in the ATS, the respondents had not taken any steps despite the appellants not having applied for permission for five years; which showed that the respondents were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and therefore, the suit was barred by limitation.

7. It was submitted that Clauses 3 & 4 of the ATS dated 31.07.1975 would indicate that the time for moving the court for specific performance started upon expiry of the 8th day from 31.07.1975 and thus, filing of the suit on 01.01.1981 was clearly beyond the period specified to institute such case.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS:

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Trial Court had rightly held that the appellants had to apply for permission and upon getting the same had to intimate to the respondents and within fifteen days of such intimation, the respondents were to get the Sale Deed executed. As the appellants had not even applied and thus, no permission was ever obtained, they had not informed the respondents and therefore, the suit would not be hit by limitation. It was his submission that the suit was filed within the limitation period.

9. It was further contended that the respondents had orall