Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act provides the vendor with a statutory right to apply for rescission of the contract if the purchaser fails to pay the amount within the period allowed by the court. Non-compliance with the terms of the decree for specific performance may result in the loss of the right to obtain a sale deed.

ORDER :

Neranahalli Srinivasan Sanjay Gowda, J.

1. Hanumantha Rao filed a suit against his brother Ramrao seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 18.07.1983 in O.S. No. 131/1984 in relation to Sy. No. 8/1 measuring 17 acres 5 guntas situated at Gudur village in Gangavathi Taluka. The said land had agreed to be sold to him for a sum of Rs. 30,825/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had already been paid.

2. The said suit after contest was decreed on 14.07.1986. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under:

" ORDER

The defendant shall execute a registered sale deed in respect of the land bearing R.S. No. 8/1 measuring 17 acres 5 guntas of Gudur Village of Gangavathi Taluk after receipt of the balance consideration amount in pursuance of the suit agreement of sale deed within six months from the date of the decree and failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same executed through Court. The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit of the plaintiff and to bear of his own.

Draw up a preliminary decree accordingly."

3. Thus, as per the decree dated 14.07.1986, Hanumantha Rao, the plaintiff, was required to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 20,825/- within a period of six months i.e., on or before 30 January, 1981. However, Hanumantha Rao did not deposit the balance sale consideration in order to be entitled for execution of the sale deed.

4. Hanumantha Rao, on the other hand, filed a execution petition in E.P. No. 9/1994 seeking to execute the decree. The executing Court by an order dated 18.08.1995 directed the defendant-Ramrao to execute the registered sale deed within 15 days by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 20,825/-. The Executing Court by the said order directed Hanumantha Rao to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 20,825/- within one week from the date of the order.

5. Hanumantha Rao, the decree holder pursuant to the above order deposited the balance amount on 20.08.1997.

6. The defendant-JDR being aggrieved by the Executing Court's order, directing him to execute the sale deed preferred revision before this Court in CRP No. 2857/1995. This Court by order dated 25.10.1999 set aside the order passed by the executing Court on 18.08.1995.

7. This Court while disposing of the revision was also of the view that it would be proper to remand the matter to the trial Court to enable the parties to work out their remedies before the trial Court in accordance with law. This Court observed that it would be open for the respondents to file an application for extension of time and observed that the trial Court may consider the matter if justified in accordance with law.

8. Pursuant to the said order passed in revision, an application for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 20,825/- was filed by the plaintiff-decree holder. However, according to the plaintiff, the sons of defendant had in the meantime filed a suit for partition in OS No. 196/2001 and the said suit was dismissed and an appeal against that was filed in RFA No. 248/2003, in which the interim stay of the execution proceedings had been granted. This according to the plaintiff-decree holder prevented the prosecution of the application for extension.

9. It is not in dispute that the execution petition filed i.e., EP No. 9/1994 was ultimately closed on 18.02.2006 on the ground that there was an interim order of stay granted in RFA No. 248/2003.

10. The decree holder thereafter filed one more execution petition in EP No. 49/2013 seeking for execution of the sale deed in his favour. In the said execution petition, an application was filed seeking for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. However, for the reasons best known to the decree holder, a submission was made that the decree holder did not press the said application and the same was dismissed as not pressed.

11. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that though a decree for specific performance was passed on 1