Timely enforcement of contract rights is critical; undue delay in asserting specific performance can bar claims even if prior agreements exist.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. Two suits were separately tried and disposed of, and these appeals, which stem from those suits, are considered together, since the subject matter of both the suits is more or less the same. There were two agreements for sale in favour of two different persons. The subject matter of the second agreement is part and parcel of the subject matter of the first agreement. The first suit, O.S. No.100/1993, arose out of the second agreement and the second, O.S. No.256/1996, from the first agreement. The first suit O.S. No.100/1993 was allowed by granting specific performance sought for, which decree is under challenge in A.S. No.628/1997, the appeal first in point of time. Specific performance sought for in the second suit, O.S. No.256/1996, was refused, which decree is under challenge in A.S. No.338/1998, the appeal later in point of time. With this prelude, the facts in the chronological order may be unfurled as follows. Since there are four agreements and two suits, the parties are referred to by their names, for the sake of convenience.

2. The original owner, Sudhakaran, was the owner of a large extent of property, of which the subject property involved in both these suits were part and parcel. The South Indian Bank Ltd. obtained a decree in a suit, O.S. No.31/1985 (Ext.A8 in O.S. No.100/1993) against the said Sudhakaran for an amount of Rs.1,41,292.40 together with interest. The decree dated 23.09.1986 was charged on 2.34 acres of land belonging to the said Sudhakaran.

3. The first agreement

On 29.11.1986, an agreement for sale was executed by and between Sudhakaran and one Iype (Ext.B1 in O.S. No.100/1993). The extent of property agreed to be sold was 1 acre, out of the above referred 2 acres and 34 cents. The sale price was agreed at the rate of Rs.3,400 per cent, for the actual extent found on measurement. The advance paid was Rs.25,000/- and the period fixed was 6 months. Between the same parties, a second agreement was executed on 28.05.1987 (Ext.B2 in O.S. No.100/1993). There, the extent got reduced to 74¹/4 cents and the total consideration was a definite sum of Rs.2,52,450/-. The advance received is stated to be Rs.27,000/- and the period fixed was before the expiry of 28.08.1987. It is stated that the purchaser Iype is put in possession of the property. Again, a third agreement was executed by and between the same parties on 29.08.1987 (Ext.B3 in O.S. No.100/1993), wherein the extent and the total consideration remained the same, as in Ext.B2. However, the advance is stated to be Rs.33,000/-. The cardinal difference is with respect to the period fixed for execution of the document. Here, it is necessary to point out that M/s.Kerala Spinners (the purchaser in the second agreement and the plaintiff in the first suit) was occupying a building in the subject premises; and performance of Ext.B3 was fixed, as and when the said M/s.Kerala Spinners is evicted from the property.

4. The second agreement

This agreement was by and between the original owner Sudhakaran and M/s.Kerala Spinners above referred (Ext.A1 in O.S. No.100/1993). In that agreement, the extent is 50 cents and the total consideration is Rs.1,50,000/-. Advance paid is Rs.50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has to be remitted to the South Indian Bank Ltd. in 10 monthly instalme