Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, UDAY KUMAR
Prasanta Kumar Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Sri Somnath Dutta – Respondent
Judgment :
sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The present first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract. In the said suit, the original defendant nos.1 and 3, namely Smt. Gita Dutta and Smt. Sabita Dutta alias Saba Haque respectively, filed with their joint written statement a counter claim for eviction against the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 Somnath Dutta also filed a written statement independently, virtually admitting the plaint case.
2. During the pendency of the suit, however, a separate amended written statement was filed by the defendant no.1, whereby she disowned her previous joint written statement and counter claim and supported the plaint case.
3. The original defendants Smt. Gita Dutta, Sri Somnath Dutta and Smt. Sabita Dutta alias Saba Haque were initially arrayed as respondents in the appeal. Smt. Gita Dutta having died during pendency of the appeal, her name was expunged, as the two other respondents survived her as her only heirs and legal representatives. Sri Somnath Dutta had all along supported the plaint case and has not contested the appeal. Since only the Defendant / Respondent No. 3 Smt. Sabita Dutta alias Saba H
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time for specific performance of a contract starts to run after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement, as per the provisions of Ar....
Contractual obligations in specific performance suits require timely action; failure to act within statutory limitation renders claims void.
Suit for Specific Performance – Unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty.
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.
Time is of the essence of the contract and the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform its part of the contract in terms of the agreement.
Time is generally not considered essence in immovable property contracts; refusal to perform requires consideration of readiness alongside equitable claims for refund.
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
