The trial court has jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase price in a suit for specific performance, even though the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate court.

Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - EXTENSION OF TIME - JURISDICTION - TRIAL COURT OR EXECUTING COURT - SECTION 35 (C) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1877 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of a house. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed specific performance, directing the plaintiff to deposit the purchase price within a specified time. The plaintiff failed to deposit the amount within the time specified and the defendant filed an application under Section 35 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, to rescind the contract. The plaintiff then filed an application in the trial court to extend the time for depositing the purchase price. The trial court allowed the application and condoned the delay. The defendant challenged the order of the trial court in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase price, even though the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate court. The court relied on the decisions in Abdul Shaker Sahib v. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and Venkata Rami Reddy v. Adinarayana, which held that the trial court retains jurisdiction to deal with matters related to the decree, including applications for extension of time, even after the decree is passed by the appellate court.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase price, even though the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate court? 2. Whether the executing court had jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase price?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase price, even though the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate court. The court relied on the decisions in Abdul Shaker Sahib v. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and Venkata Rami Reddy v. Adinarayana, which held that the trial court retains jurisdiction to deal with matters related to the decree, including applications for extension of time, even after the decree is passed by the appellate court. 2. The court held that the executing court did not have jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase price. The court relied on Section 35 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which provides that only the court that passed the decree for specific performance can rescind the contract.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. The court also set aside the order of the trial court condoning the delay in payment of the purchase price and directed the trial court to consider the application afresh.

( 1 ) ONE Ibrahim Sheriff, the petitioner and the appellant before me> and his brother Mastan Sheriff jointly purchased a house on 11th July, 1940. But they found that they could not conveniently enjoy the house jointly. So they entered into an agreement in counter-part on 26th October, 1952, under which ibrahim Sheriff was to purchase the half share of Mastan Sheriff on payment of a particular amount within a specified time. In default option was given to Mastan sheriff to pay the amount to Ibrahim Sheriff and get a sale deed with respect to the latter s half share in the house. It appears that Ibrahim Sheriff did not pay the amount in time. Therefore, Mastan Sheriff filed O. S. No. 79 of 1953 in the District munsif s Court, Guntur for specific performance of the agreement of sale by direct- ing Ibrahim Sheriff to execute the sale deed with respect to his half share in the house on Mastan Sheriff paying the purchase price. That suit was dismissed by the District Munsif s Court, Guntur. But Masthan Shariff filed an appeal,. A. S. No. 179 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur. It was allowed and a decree was passed by that Court in the following terms;" (1) that the defendant do excuse, and register a proper conveyance in favour of the plaintiff in respect of his half share in the property specified in the plaint schedule (annexed to the decree of the lower Court) in pursuance of the contract of sale dated 26th October, 1952, within one month from 29th November, 1954, on the plaintiff depositing before the lower Court the sum of Rs. 2, 250 in the meanwhile, and that the defendant do put the plaintiff in possession of the said property (2) that in case of default on the part of the defendant as stated above, the plaintiff be at liberty to apply to the lower Court for execution of a proper conveyance through Court in execution proceedings on the plaintiff depositing the requisite stamp and registration charges ; (3) that the future mesne profits if any due to the plaintiff be determined by the lower Court an separate proceedings on a separate application to be filed by him under order 20, rule 12 of the code of Civil Procedure. (4) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 380-13-0 towards costs in the appeal and also the sum of Rs. 388-7-0 towards cost s in the suits ; and (5) that the defendant do bear his own costs Rs. 151-0-0 in the appeal and Rs. 178-12-0 in the suit.

( 2 ) THIS decree is dated 29th November, 1954. Ibrahim Sheriff filed S. A. No. 328 of 1955 in the High Court of Andhra which was dismissed by the High Court of andhra Pradesh on 22nd October, 1957. Mastan Shariff, the decree-holder, filed I. A. No. 1000 of 1958 for ascertainment of mesne profits but that was dismissed with costs after contest. It may be mentioned that till then the decreeholder did not deposit the amount of Rs. 2,250 as per the decree of the first appellate Court within one month from the date of that decree. I. A. No. 1000 of 1958 appears to have been dismissed on the objection of Ibrahim Sheriff that the decreeholder did not deposit the amount of Rs. 2,250 within one month as per the decree of the appellate Court and did not obtain a sale deed in his favour as per the terms of that decree. It may also be mentioned that I. A. No. 1000 of 1958 for ascertainment of mesne profits and for passing a decree therefor was dismissed on 6th November, 1958, and that order had become final. Still, the decree holder did not apply for extension of the time granted by the appellate Court in the decree i. e. , one month from 29th november, 1954, and did not deposit the amount of Rs. 2,250 to enable him to get a sale deed executed with respect to the half share in the house belonging to Ibrahim sheriff.

( 3 ) THE decree-holder next filed E. P. No. 629 of 1960 under Order 21, rules 34, 43 and 66, Civil Procedure Code, for execution of the registered sale deed by the judgment-debtor and for attachment and sale of moveables and f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1966 Supreme(AP) 222

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRIIbrahim Shariff - AppellantVersusMasthan Shariff - RespondentDecided On : 10-14-66

The trial court has jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase price in a suit for specific performance, even though the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate court.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI
Ibrahim Shariff - Appellant
Versus
Masthan Shariff - Respondent
Decided On : 10-14-66