Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R Raghunandan Rao, J.
D Shantilal Sangeetha Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
Nagalapuram Munisankar Died and ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No: 508 of 2023
Decided On : 20-03-2024
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.06.1984 - Suit dismissed as barred by limitation, filed 20 years after payment of balance sale consideration - Extension of agreement not valid post-expiration of limitation period - Specific performance is an equitable relief and can be denied if inequitable to other parties. (Paras 9, 10, 15, 17)
(B) Limitation - The period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance commences from the date of refusal to execute the sale deed, which in this case was 15.04.1996, making the suit filed in 2006 clearly barred by limitation. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement from 1984, claiming extensions and payments made, but faced opposition from the respondents who argued the agreement was a sham and the suit was time-barred.
Findings of Court:
The courts found the agreement was not valid for specific performance due to the long delay and the existence of subsequent purchasers' rights.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the sale agreement and the applicability of the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the agreement was not enforceable due to the substantial delay and the rights of subsequent purchasers, emphasizing the equitable nature of specific performance.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R Raghunandan Rao, J.
The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit.
2. The appellant had filed O.S.No.321 of 2006 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for specific performance of a registered agreement of sale dated 13.06.1984 for purchase of Ac.1.70 cents of land which is described in the scheduled attached to the plaint and referred to as the suit schedule property.
3. The case of the appellant, in this regard is as follows:-
4. The 1st respondent is said to have passed away during the pendency of the suit and the respondents 2 to 5 were impleaded as his legal representatives. Subsequently, the respondents 6 to 16 were also brought on record as defendants on the ground that they had obtained registered deeds of sale of property, which was part of the suit schedule property.
5. The 1st respondent filed a written statement, in which he admitted execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of advance Rs. 2,50,000/- apart from the balance of Rs. 50,000/- on 25.06.1986. However, the 1st respondent contended that the plaintiff continued to postpone execution of the registered deed of sale and that while he approached the appellant to find out why legal notice dated 15.04.1996 had been issued, he had ignored the legal notice dated 03.05.2006. It was the stand of the 1st respondent that due to the passage of time the value of the property had increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- and he was willing to execute the necessary documents upon the appellant paying the differential amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-
6. The respondents 8 & 10 to 13 had filed separate written statements while, the respondents 2 to 7 and 9 & 14 to 16 remained ex-parte. The written statements of these respondents essentially stated that the plaint schedule property and adjacent properties to an extent of Ac.5.46 cents were actually the properties of deceased 1st respondent, Sri. G. Naidu and Sri. A. Bali Reddy who had made a layout of the said land and sold the plots in the layout to various persons including these respondents by way of registered deeds. These respondents contended that on account of the deeds of sale being executed much prior to the filing of the suit, it was not permissible for the appellant to claim the rights over the land, on account of the suit agreement of sale.
7. The respondents raised the ground of limitation in as much as the suit for specific performance was filed more than 10 years after the legal notice dated 15.04.1996 had been issued. It was also contended that the agreement of sale it
The court upheld that a suit for specific performance was barred by limitation, emphasizing the equitable nature of such relief and the rights of subsequent purchasers.
Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Validity of agreement is something different and does not change date of performance – Suit can be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
A suit for specific performance is barred by limitation under Art. 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if filed after the expiry of the limitation period.
Suit for Specific Performance – Unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty.
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.
Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance cannot be decreed after termination of sale agreement by defendant.
Contractual obligations in specific performance suits require timely action; failure to act within statutory limitation renders claims void.
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
