IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Vijay Madhavrao Budhale - Appellant
Versus
Bhagoji Ganu Kamble & Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 289 of 2023 With Interim Application No. 7762 of 2023 (for intervention)
Decided On : 10-01-2024
Specific Performance - Limitation - Article 54 of the Limitation Act - Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Refund of Earnest Money - [FACT OF THE CASE] Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 14 March 2011. The Defendant sold the suit property to a third party during the pendency of the suit. The Plaintiff sought alternate relief for refund of earnest money. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court held that the suit was within limitation and the Plaintiff was entitled to the refund of earnest money with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. [ISSUES] The issues involved limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, entitlement to protection of possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, and the refund of earnest money. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court interpreted the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, and considered the conduct of the parties in reaching its decision. [FINAL DECISION] The Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the Defendant to refund the earnest money of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 14 March 2011 till the date of payment.
JUDGMENT :
A. THE CHALLENGE
1. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Judge-4, Kolhapur on 24 November 2022 allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2022 and reversing the Decree dated 2 March 2022 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 505 of 2019.
B. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
2. The Second Appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law :
(i) Whether limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act would begin from the date of oral refusal to perform a contract before occurrence of the contingency, on which performance of contract depends?
(ii) Whether co-owners of property who are confirming parties to agreement for sale are necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of that agreement?
(iii) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to protection of possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
(iv) Whether discretionary relief of specific performance can be granted in Plaintiffs favour?
(v) Whether alternate relief of refund of earnest money with interest can be granted in favour of Plaintiff?
3. The learned counsel have placed on record compilation of relevant documents. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the appeal and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, who have extensively canvassed their submissions before me, the Second Appeal is taken up for final hearing.
C. FACTS
4. Narration of brief factual background of the case would be necessary for better understanding of formulation of the above questions of law and for answering them. Suit property bearing Gat No.54 Hissa No.2A admeasuring 2 Hectares 7 Ares was owned and possessed by the Defendant. A registered Agreement for Sale dated 14 March 2011 came to be executed, by which the Defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/. Out of the said agreed amount of consideration, Plaintiff paid to the Defendant, amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and agreed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.25,000/- at the time of execution of the Sale-Deed. The Agreement for Sale contained a stipulation that prior permission of the Government Authorities was needed for sale transaction and that the Defendant was to procure such permission and give a written intimation to the Plaintiff and after one month of receipt of intimation, the Sale-Deed was to be executed. It is Plaintiffs case that since 80% of the consideration was paid at the time of execution of Agreement for Sale, Defendant handed over possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff by executing a separate possession receipt executed on 14 March 2011.
5. Since the Defendant failed to execute the Sale-Deed in favour of the Plaintiff, Notice dated 29 December 2018 was issued to the Defendant at the behest of the Plaintiff calling upon the Defendant to execute the Sale-Deed by accepting the balance amount of consideration. As the Defendant failed to act as per the Notice, Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 505 of 2019 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur seeking specific performance of Agreement for Sale dated 14 March 2011 and for regularization of possession. An alternate prayer was made for refund of consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum in the event of the Court not granting specific performance for any technical reason. The Defendant resisted the suit by filing Written Statement.
6. It appears that during pendency of the suit, by Sale-deed dated 23 December 2021, the Defendant sold the suit property to Shri. Praveen Laxman Kesarkar for consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-.
7. The Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit by its Judgment and Order dated 2 March 2022 directing the Defendant to execute the Sale-deed of the suit property by accepting the balance consideration of Rs.25,000/- within one month by making application seeking permission for Sale. It was directed that in the event of the De
Panchanan Dhara and Others Vs. Monmatha Nath Maithy (Dead) Through LRS. And another
Ahmmadsahab Abdul Mulla (Dead) by proposed Lrs. Vs. Bibijan and Ors.
AI
The Court interpreted the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, and considered the conduct of the parties in reaching its decision.
The plaintiff's failure to file the suit within the limitation period and to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract resulted in dismissal of the specific performance claim.
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.
Suit for Specific Performance – Unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty.
Contractual obligations in specific performance suits require timely action; failure to act within statutory limitation renders claims void.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract; failure to do so negates the right to enforce the agreement.
The court ruled that time is not an essence of contract in specific performance cases, and the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance despite the trial court's dismissal.
Limitation periods for enforcing contractual agreements are strict; a plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform obligations, or the suit may be dismissed as time-barred.
In a suit for specific performance where no time is fixed, the limitation period begins upon notice of refusal. An unregistered sale agreement is admissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act, ....
The necessity of a written contract for protection under Section 53A of the T.P. Act and the importance of proving readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract under Secti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.