2012 Supreme(Del) 699
High Court of Delhi
G.S. SISTANI, J.
Ram Gopal
Versus
Yogeshwar Chand & Others
CS(OS) 177 OF 2012
Decided On : 01-03-2012
For the Plaintiff:Shiv Charan Garg & Imran Khan, Advocates.
The main legal point established is the application of the limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act to determine the time for specific performance.
Headnote:
specific performance - property dispute - Limitation Act, Article 54
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance and permanent injunction regarding a property dispute. The court found the suit to be beyond the period of limitation and dismissed it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation and appeared to be a counter-blast to an eviction petition.
Issues: The main issue was the limitation period for the suit for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Article 54 of the Limitation Act, which states that the time for specific performance begins to run from the date of knowledge of vendor’s refusal to perform.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit as it was found to be beyond the period of limitation.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Counsel for the plaintiff was requested to address arguments on the question of limitation, as it appears that the present suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation.
2. As per the plaint, plaintiff is running a shop under the name and style of M/s.R.G.S. Collection on the ground floor in the property in question bearing No.42-43 U.B. Block, Jawahar Nagar Delhi. The defendants who have been arrayed as parties to the present suit are the owner of the suit property and legal heirs of late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma, who expired on 27.09.2011. It is stated in the plaint that during his life time, late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma entered into an oral agreement to Sell with the plaintiff, which fact was within the knowledge of the defendants. The plaintiff is in occupation of the suit premises since the year 1992 onwards. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it has been averred that the oral agreement to sell was made in the last week of April, 1992 in respect of two portions for a total sale consideration of Rs.54,70,000/-. It is also averred that one part of the premises in question was occupied by Sardar Surender Singh, which is shown in yellow colour and another portion was occupied by M/s.Hindustan Book Agency through its partner Sh.Jainender Kumar Jain, which is shown in green colour. As per the plaint a common meeting took place among the plaintiff, Sardar Surender Singh and Shri Jainender Kumar Jain and Late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma agreed to sell the premises as shown in RED colour in the site plan to the plaintiff on the condition that plaintiff would pay Rs.36,70,000/-to Sardar Surender Singh, Rs.5,00,000/-would be paid to M/s.Hindustan Book Agency through its partner Sh.Jainender Kumar Jain and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.13,00,000/-would be paid by the plaintiff to late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma. It is also stated in the plaint that the entire sale consideration was to be paid within two years. As per para 4 of the plaint Rs.36,70,000/-was paid by the plaintiff to Sardar Surender Singh in different instalments i.e Rs.2,51,000/-on 28.05.1992, Rs.10,50,000/-on 02.06.1992, Rs.3,00,000/-on 05.07.1992 and remaining amounts were also paid which was within the knowledge of Sh.Prem Chand Sharma. It is stated that Sardar Surender Singh executed various documents evidencing receipt of money. It is also stated in the plaint that Sardar Surender Singh executed a surrender letter in favour of the plaintiff whereby he handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the portion under his use and occupation in the presence of one Sh.Chander Mohan, to the plaintiff. As per paragraph 6 of the plaint, the back portion of the premises in question was occupied by M/s. Hindustan Book Agency for which plaintiff has paid Sh.Jainender Kumar Jain partner of M/s. Hindustan Book Agency a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-on different dates (Rs.25,000/-on 02.06.1992, Rs.75,000/-on 04.06.1992 and Rs.4,00,000/-on 18.08.1992) with the consent and on behalf of late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma, out of total sale consideration amount as part performance of the agreement to sell.Sh.Jainender Kumar Jain had also executed a surrender letter dated 18.08.1992 in favour of the plaintiff.
3. Attention of this court is drawn to paragraph 8 of the plaint where it has been averred that plaintiff requested late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma, to execute any document in his favour, as huge amount had been paid to perfect his title. It is also stated that plaintiff also gave some amount to Sardar Surender Singh and Sh. Jainender Kumar Jain in October, 1992, however, late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma, fraudulently and dishonestly induced to the plaintiff that he would issue a letter only in the shape of creating tenancy, unless and until he receives the entire consideration amount. On 19.10.1992 plaintiff paid Rs.3,25,000/-, out of the total sale consideration to Sh.Prem Chand Sharma and Sh.Prem Chand Sharma execut