Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Robert Bruce – Appellant
Versus
R.Raja Jeyasekhar (died) – Respondent
ORDER :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
1. Both the revision petitions arise out of two Interlocutory Applications filed in O.S.No.148 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. I.A.No.436 of 2018 was filed by the decree holder under Section 148 of C.P.C seeking extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration. I.A.No.446 of 2018 was filed by the second defendant under Section 28 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT to rescind the sale agreement. Both the applications have been dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the above said revision petitions have been filed.
2. Since the issues involved in both the revision petitions are interconnected, they are heard together and disposed off by way of a common order.
(A) The undisputed facts are as follows:
3. The first defendant in the suit is the absolute owner of the property. He had entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 18.03.2005 wherein the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.44,025/-. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.5000/-. However, the first defendant had sold away the property to the second defendant by way of a sale deed dated 15.04.2005. Hence, the plaintiff had f
The court ruled that the application for extension of time for depositing sale consideration is valid, given the decree holder's consistent readiness and ongoing appeals affecting timelines.
Agreement to sell – Provisions to grant specific performance of agreement are quite stringent – Equitable considerations come into play.
The court retains jurisdiction to extend time for performance of a decree, but such extensions must be justified and considered alongside applications for rescission to ensure fairness.
A party seeking specific performance must have clean hands; failure to disclose subsequent agreements does not negate execution of prior decrees, provided timelines for compliance are met.
Courts possess discretion under CPC and the Specific Relief Act to extend deadlines for contract performance, reflecting on claimants' willingness and circumstances surrounding payment delays.
An application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can only be filed within three years from the date when the right to apply for rescission accrues. The concept of 'reasonable time' is cruci....
The executing court has the authority to extend time for deposit of balance consideration in specific performance cases, but such discretion must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the rea....
The decree for specific performance remains executable despite delays in deposit of balance sale consideration, provided no rescission is sought by judgment debtors.
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
