Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 524
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Civil Appeal No. 8653 of 2012
SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 03.12.2012
Headnote:(A) Indian Limitation Act, 1963, Sec. 15(5) and Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Limitation period for filing — Computation — Time period during which the defendant was absent from India to be excluded in computing the period of limitation —Cause of action arose, period of limitation i.e. three years for filing of suit over on 9.11.1975 — Suit filed on 3.11.1977, such suit well within time by excluding the period of absence of defendant from India, by way of operation of provisions of Sec. 15(5), Act, 1963. (Paras 13 to 15)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sec. 16(c) — Suit for specific performance of contract — Readiness and willingness of plaintiff to perform his part of the contract — Principles for judging — Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff depends on his overall conduct i.e. prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit, to be viewed in the light of the conduct of the defendant. (Para 25)
(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sec. 20 — Specific performance of agreement — Discretion of Court — Factors to be considered — Eflux of time between the date of agreement and the decree of specific enforcement and galloping value of real estate in the meantime — Such features, may justify award of additional compensation to the vendor by grant of a price higher than what had been stipulated in the agreement — In a given case that could be the market price as on date of the order of the final Court. (Paras 27 to 30)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 15¼5½ vkSj fof’k”V jkgr vf/kfu;e] 1963 & nk;j djus ds fy, ifjlhek vof/k dh lax.kuk & og le; vof/k tc izfroknh Hkkjr ls ckgj x;k gqvk Fkk dks lhek vof/k dh lax.kuk djrs le; ugha fxuk x;k & okn gsrqd] ifjlhek dh vof/k i.e. fd okn nk;j djus ds rhu o”kZ lekIr gks x, 9-11-1975 dks & okn nk;j gqvk 3-11-1997 vkSj Sec. 15(5) Act, 1963 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr ;g okn ifjlhek esa ekuk tk,xk ml le; vof/k dks fudkydj tc izfroknh Hkkjr ls ckgj FkkA ¼izLrj 13 ls 15½
¼c½ fof’k”V jkgr vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 16¼lh½ & lafonk esa fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k ds fy, okn & oknh lafonk ikyu djus ds fy, rS;kj vkSj jtkeUn & ftlds fl)k¡r fuHkZj djrs gSa mlds laiw.kZ O;ogkj ij i.e. okn nk;j djus ls igys o mijkUr dk O;ogkj ftls ij[kk tk, izfroknh ds O;ogkj lsA ¼izLrj 25½
¼l½ fof’k”V jkgr vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 20 & djkj dk fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k & vnkyr dk foosdkf/kdkj & fopkjuh; dkj.k & djkj dh frfFk vkSj fofufnZ”V izorZu ds foys[k ds chp vof/k dk lekIr gksuk o mlh le; real estate dh dherksa esa mNky & ;g dkj.k i;kZIr] foØsrk dks vfrfjDr eqvkotk nsus ds fy,] tks fd Å¡ps nke nsuk gS ctk; mlds tks djkj esa vuqc) Fks & izLrqr okn esa og vfUre U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dh frfFk dk cktkjh ewY; gks ldrk gSA ¼izLrj 27 ls 30½
RANJAN GOGOI, J. — Leave granted.
2. The appellants, apart from the appellant Narendra Jain (Plaintiff No.2), claim to be the Legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiffs 1 and 3 who had instituted suit No. 994/1977 in the High Court of Delhi seeking a decree of specific performance in respect of an agreement dated 22.12.1970 executed by and between original plaintiff No.1 (Bhikhu Ram Jain) and the original defendant Anis Ahmed Rushdie in respect of a property described as Bungalow No.4, Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were/are the sons of the original plaintiff No.1. The suit was decreed by the learned trial judge. The decree having been reversed by a Division Bench of the High Court the present appeals have been filed by the original plaintiff No.2, Narendra Jain and the other appellants who claim to be vested with a right to sue on the basis of the claims made by the original plaintiffs in the suit. It is, however, made clear at the very outset that though all such persons claiming a right to sue through the deceased plaintiffs 1 and 3 are being referred to hereinafter as the plaintiffs and an adjudication of the causes/claims espoused is being made herein the said exercise does not, in any way, recognize any right in any such impleaded ‘plaintiffs’ which Question(s) are left open for decision if and when so raised.
3. The pleaded case of the respective parties may now be briefly noticed.
In the suit filed by the original plaintiffs it was pleaded that the defendant, who was the owner of the suit property, after inducting the plaintiff No. 1 as a tenant in respect of the half portion of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rupees three hundred w.e.f. 20.12.1970 had executed an agreement dated 22.12.1970 to sell the suit property to the said plaintiff No.1. According to the plaintiffs the price fixed under the agreement was Rupees 3,75,000/- (Rupees three lakh and seventy five thousand only) out of which an amount of Rupees 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff No.1 as part payment. Under clauses 4, 5 and 7 of the agreement dated 22.12.1970 the defendant was required to obtain necessary Tax Clearance Certificate from the Income Tax Authorities for sale of the suit property and intimate the said fact and also deliver to the plaintiff No.1 a copy of such certificate within twelve months from the date of the execution of the agreement dated 22.12.1970. Within three months thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 was required to pay the balance sale consideration on receipt of which the defendant was under an obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Under clause (7) of the agreement dated 22.12.1970 the plaintiff No.1 was to pay to the Income Tax Authorities such amount as may be desired by the defendant (not exceeding the balance sale price of the property) against the tax dues of the defendant so as to facilitate the grant of the required tax clearance certificate. Clause (7) of the agreement also contemplated that such money as may be paid by the plaintiff No.1 to the Income Tax Authorities in the defendant-vendor’s account was tobe deducted by the plaintiff from the balance of the sale price at the time of the execution of the sale deed.
4. According to the plaintiffs, as the plaintiff No.1 had not received any intimation from the defendant in the matter of execution of the sale deed he had written a letter dated 27.12.1971 to the defendant enquiring about the steps taken to obtain the necessary Tax Clearance certificate from the Income Tax Authorities. The plaintiffs had pleaded that the said letter was not replied to. Instead a legal notice dated 6.11.1972 was issued on behalf of the defendant wherein it was, inter alia, claimed that defendant had written a letter to the plaintiff No.1 as far back as on 9.9.1971 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rupees One lakh
