Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S., J
Kunjumol – Appellant
Versus
Ponnamma, W/o. Udayabhanu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 256 of 1996, on the files of the Munsiff Court, Punalur.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 256 of 1996 seeking for specific performance of Ext. A1 agreement. As per Ext.A1 agreement, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.62,500/- on 28.03.1985. An advance amount of Rs.20,500/- was given as a part of initial sale consideration and thereafter, on 22.11.1985, the plaintiff paid another Rs.25,000/-. Consequent to the 2nd tranche of sale consideration being paid, the plaintiff was put in possession of the plaint schedule property by the defendant. It is further alleged that on 10.02.1987, the plaintiff further paid a sum of Rs.14,900/- to the agent of defendant (PW3). Thereafter, the plaintiff started residing in the property and spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- for renovation. After receiving the consideration towards the property, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Later, the plaintiff inducted a tenant into the plaint schedule property and shifted her residence to Thiruvananthapuram. After repeated reque
Possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not override the limitation period prescribed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act for filing a suit for specific performance.
(1) Amendment of plaint – When basic structure of suit/counter claim is not altered by proposed amendment and only nature of relief is sought to be changed allowing amendment with a view to curtail m....
The amendment to a counter claim for specific performance was not barred by limitation, and possession under Section 53A was upheld.
A suit for specific performance is barred by limitation when filed beyond three years from the date of refusal, and cannot succeed if the vendor lacked the title to the property.
The lawsuit for specific performance was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond three years from the fixed date, with prior litigation not warranting an exclusion of time.
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.
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.
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
