2021 Supreme(Mad) 1092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J.
M/s. Cordell Estates (P) Ltd. - Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed and ors. – Respondents
C.S.No.878 of 2005
Decided On : 02-06-2021

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Article 54 - Specific Relief Act - Sections 20 (c), 20(3) , 10 and 16(c) - Relief for compensation of a sum - Agreement of sale - execute a fresh agreement with an sale - Whether the suit for Specific Performance is maintainable - Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its obligation under the Agreement of Sale - Whether on the plaintiff's admission that the balance consideration was not paid plaintiff is dis entitled to relief of Specific Performance - Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the obligation under the Supplementary Agreement - Whether the plaintiff committed breach of its obligation and the Agreement became unforgeable - Whether the suit is barred by limitation - Whether the plaintiff is disentitled to the equitable remedy of Specific Performance under Section 20 (c) of the Specific Relief Act - Whether the Agreements have lapsed or its unenforceable - Whether the Agreement read with Supplementary Agreement is binding on the parties herein - To what reliefs are the parties entitled to - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of compensation - Whether the claim for compensation is barred by limitation - Whether the other party has definitely and unequivocally refused to carry out his part of the contract and had intimated that money would be refused if tendered - Suit was originally filed for specific performance directing the defendants to execute the sale deeds in respect of suit property in favour of the plaintiff or its nominees for after receiving the balance consideration of Rs.75 lacs and to hand over possession of suit property - Case the defendants fail to execute same then direct the Assistant Registrar (O.S) to execute and register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff - Plaintiff had filed for amending the plaint to include an alternate relief for compensation of a sum - Application was allowed by orders and thereafter plaint was also amended and in addition to the relief for specific performance the plaintiff also sought for a direction to the defendants to pay a sum - Suit property belongs to defendants 1 to 5 and on 28.10.1995, the plaintiff had entered into separate agreement of sale with defendants 1 to 5. Defendants 1 to 5 had signed their respective deeds as vendors and defendants 6 to 8 has signed as confirming parties in all these Deeds - Total sale consideration for all the agreements put together was a sum - plaintiff asking for an enhanced amount and as they were not cooperating in the sale, plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance but had not numbered the same – Held, Case of hand the date for payment of balance sale consideration was fixed as 07.06.2001. In fact, Clause 3 of the Ex.P.2 would clearly stipulate that if the plaintiff fails to pay the balance sale consideration then the defendants are at liberty to sell the property to third parties - Therefore the case would fall within the first limb of Article 54 - agreement Ex.P.1 read with the Supplementary Agreement (Ex.P2) has become time barred and is no longer binding on the parties. No doubt, the Decree for Specific Performance is a discretionary power however the Court has to exercise this discretion keeping in view the settled principles of Law. The plaintiff who originally entered into an agreement as early as in the year 1995 has not displayed his readiness and willingness to proceed further with the Contract that apart he has filed the suit beyond the period of limitation - These issues are also answered against the plaintiff - Seeking the alternative relief by way of amendment the plaintiff has not amended the pleadings and no evidence has been adduced in proof of this claim - Alternative relief is also sought for only after a period of 22 years after the filing of the suit and 25 years after the cause of action had admittedly accrued. Further in the Plaint, they have contended that the refund of the advance is not an adequate the plaintiff is not entitled to the alternative relief of compensation - Civil Suit is dismissed