IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Wallace
Abdul Shaker Sahib
Versus
Abdul Rahiman Sahib And Anr.
Decided On : 1 November, 1922
specific performance - contract for sale of lands - Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act - The court discussed the nature of the decree for specific performance, the power of the court to extend the time for specific performance, and the remedies available to the parties in case of default.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of lands. The first defendant appealed, and the plaintiffs applied for an extension of time for payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree for specific performance was in the nature of a preliminary decree, and the original court had the power to extend the time for specific performance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the time fixed in the decree for specific performance was a condition, and whether the court had the power to extend the time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decree for specific performance was in the nature of a preliminary decree, and the original court had the power to extend the time for specific performance.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the time for completion was extended by the decree for a period of two months.
1. The respondents, plaintiffs, obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain lands and superstructures thereon to them by the first defendant. Coutts Trotter J. gave judgment in the following words: "I must therefore find for the plaintiffs and give them decree for specific performance on payment of Rs. 4,000. Time for payment two months." In pursuance of this judgment a decree was passed providing (1) that, upon payment by the plaintiffs on or before the 19th day of December 1921 of a sum of Rupees Four Thousand only, the first defendant do execute and register a proper deed of conveyance of the properties in the schedule (2) that upon payment the first defendant do put the plaintiffs in possession of the properties together with all documents and title-deeds. Before the expiry of the two months that is before December 19th, the first defendant had given notice of appeal. Before the expiry of the two months but after the notice of appeal, the plaintiffs had issued an application before the Judge in charge of the Original side for extention of the time for paying the money and this application was heard in January 1922, that is, after the expiration of the two months and was ordered to stand over until the hearing of this appeal. The appeal coming on, a preliminary point is taken, namely, that the two months having now elapsed neither the Original Court nor this Court has any power to extend the time and that therefore the plaintiffs have lost irrevocably all their rights under the decree except the costs, and that it is therefore useless to occupy the time of this Court in considering the merits of the case. I do not think that this is strictly a preliminary point, because the question of the costs of the suit would still remain. If the decree was right, the plaintiffs would be entitled to costs from the first defendant and if wrong the plaintiff would be liable for costs. But the point has been fully argued on both sides and raises important points on which we shall express our opinion.
2. The decree as drawn up, I am told, is the ordinary form of decree in use here in cases of specific performance. It may be that it is a convenient form in certain cases, though I have been unable to discover its history and how it came to be adopted. No form for a decree for specific performance is provided by statute or rule here, and it has been left to the courts to devise a suitable and appropriate form. Specific performance is an equitable remedy which has been known and used by the Courts of Chancery in England for centuries and appropriate forms of judgment have been approved by learned Equity Judges in England and have now become almost stereotyped: and those at present in use will be found set out in Seton on Judgments under the title Specific Performance. On a perusal of them the first thing to be observed is that not one of those forms contained in the first instance limit of time for payment of the purchase money and not one attempts to make payment of the purchase money by a certain date a condition of the continuance of the rights under the judgment. After the original judgment for specific performance it is the definite practice in England that all consequential relief by reason of any party failing to comply with the terms of the judgment must be sought by application to the Court by which the judgment was passed. Such applications are made by motion in the action showing that in England, after the original judgment the action is by no means ended but remains under the control of the same court. If the default is made by the purchaser in paying the purchase money there are several remedies open to the vendor. (I) He may on motion in the action obtain an order fixing a definite time and place for payment and delivery over of the conveyance and title deed and can, after the expiration of that time, levy execution for the amount if not paid. (2) He may apply by motion in the action for
AI
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.