Back
1985 Supreme(AP) 35
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.S.TIWANA, Y.V.ANJANEYULU
K.SAMBASIVA RAO - Appellant
Versus
P.BANGARU RAJU - Respondent
Decided On : 01-30-85
The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiff was put on notice regarding the performance for the first time in the letter, dt. 4-9-1978 addressed by the appellant’s Advocate to the respondent’s Advocate.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - LIMITATION - ARTICLE 54 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO PERFORM CONTRACT - DELAY IN FILING SUIT - DISCRETION OF COURT - SECTION 16 (C) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM CONTRACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 30-9-1965, entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, for the sale of one acre of land out of 13 acres. The trial court decreed the suit and directed the defendant to execute a regular deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, challenging the decision of the trial court. The first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiff was put on notice regarding the performance for the first time in the letter, dt. 4-9-1978 addressed by the appellant’s Advocate to the respondent’s Advocate. The court also held that there was no unconscionable delay disentitling the respondent to the exercise of discretion in this favor for the specific performance of the agreement, date 30-9-1965. The court further held that the respondent had unequivocally indicated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and specifically averred so in the plaint and indicated the same during the course of the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. Whether there was unconscionable delay disentitling the respondent to the exercise of discretion in this favor for the specific performance of the agreement, date 30-9-1965? 3. Whether the respondent had unequivocally indicated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and specifically averred so in the plaint and indicated the same during the course of the trial?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiff was put on notice regarding the performance for the first time in the letter, dt. 4-9-1978 addressed by the appellant’s Advocate to the respondent’s Advocate. 2. The court held that there was no unconscionable delay disentitling the respondent to the exercise of discretion in this favor for the specific performance of the agreement, date 30-9-1965. 3. The court held that the respondent had unequivocally indicated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and specifically averred so in the plaint and indicated the same during the course of the trial.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 2 ) IT is necessary to state the relevant facts ; An agreement (Ex. A-1) was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 30-9-65, according to which, the appellant agreed to sell to the respondent one acre out of the 13 acres of land in S. No. 194/8 in Begumpst, Secunderabad. The appellant purchased the 13 acres of land, under a registered sale $ft4 dt- 3-9-65. Out of these 13 acres of land, oe acre was agreed to be sold by the appellant to the respondent for consideration of Rs. 500/- clause 1 of the agreement is relevant and it is quoted below ;"the 2nd among us (Respondent herein-Sic) will select 1 acre on one side of 13 acres plot described in the schedule within six months from this date and 2nd among us will get the same measured and partitioned immediately after the selection by the 2nd among us and the 2nd among us shall be put in physical possession of the same". It may be mentioned that the entire extent of 13 acres of open land was one single plot and it was, therefore, provided in the agreement that the respondent shall select one acre on one sfde of the 13 acres plot within a period of six months from the date of the agreement and, after such selection by the respondent, the one acre shall be partitioned and the respondent shall be put in physical possession of the same and a proper deed of conveyance, executed by the appellant, in favour of the respondent. There is no information as to what happened subsequently. There appeared to be a complete lull. On 7-7-75, the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent, which inter alia contained a reference to the Begumpet land, covered by the agreement. The appellant referred to the possibility of a law soon, taking effect putting a ceiling on holdings of urban land. The appellant mentioned that, before the law is enacted, ways and means must be found to dispose of the land. The appellant also mentioned that he needed Rs. 5,000/- immediately "to sit at Hyderabad and get things done". It was also mentioned in the letter that, on account of the ceiling on the holdings of agricultural lands, the appellant was unable to get any money and requested the respondent to come to his rescue. Ultimately, the appellant required the respondent to remit to him as much money, as he could before the 13th July, 1975. There was apparently no response to this letter from the respondent. There was another letter dated 1-9-75, addressed by the appellant to the respondent, wherein it was pointed out that the last date for conversion of inam land into patta land was fixed as 26th September, 1975 and
