Back
M.JAGANNADHA RAO, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Bismillah Begum (Dead) by LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Rahmatullah Khan (Dead) by LRs. – Respondent
Key Points: - Time is the essence of the contract in contracts relating to reconveyance of immovable property; delay in payment disentitles the plaintiff from specific performance. (!) (!) - The plaintiff failed to show readiness and willingness to perform by offering to repay within the period; findings of non-performance are binding in Second Appeal. (!) - If the option to repurchase is not exercised strictly within the time limit, it lapses, and the appeal fails. (!) - Pre-1963 law did not require tender of amount; Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 clarifies readiness and willingness requirements. (!) - The appeal was dismissed; option lapsed due to non-payment within time. (!) - Caltex/ Mama’s authorities cited to support that time is usually essential in reconveyance; however, the court held time is essential for reconveyance contracts. (!) (!) - The specific case involved reconveyance dated 8.2.1955 and suit filed 7.2.1958; three-year period for payment of consideration. (!) (!) - The respondent was not proven to have caused the delay by the defendant’s attitude; plaintiff’s own inaction found. (!)
JUDGMENT
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The suit was filed on 7.2.1958 seeking specific performance of a contract of reconveyance dated 8.2.1955.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, predecessor in interest who owned the suit house property in Kanpur executed a registered sale deed dated 8.2.1955 for Rs. 2,000/- in favour of the sole defendant (who has also since died) and also simultaneously obtained an agreement of reconveyance from the defendant on the same day. It appears that the said agreement for reconveyance stipulated that in case the seller was able to pay back the consideration within a period of three years and certain expenses and other monies expended by the purchaser towards repairs, the seller would be entitled to get back the property. It is on the basis of the above said agreement of reconveyance that the seller filed the present suit on 7.2.1958.
3. In the courts below the questions as to whether time was the essence of contract and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract were debated. The courts below held that the plaintiff was not ready an
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
