Limitation periods for enforcing contractual agreements are strict; a plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform obligations, or the suit may be dismissed as time-barred.

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant (Plaintiff before the Trial Court) assails the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2015 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”], passed by the learned Single Judge [hereinafter referred to as “LSJ”], whereby the suit filed by the Appellant, seeking relief of specific performance against the Agreement to Sell dated 24.04.2000 [hereinafter referred to as “agreement”] in respect of a free hold property bearing no. 16, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 admeasuring 1219 sq. yds. [hereinafter referred to as “suit property”], was dismissed on account of the suit being barred by limitation alongside the Appellant’s non-willingness to perform his part of contract.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. At the outset, it is noted that issues requiring adjudication of this Court are both procedural and substantive in nature, which are an offshoot of the turn of events arising from developments related to the payment of the remaining amount against the sale consideration. Therefore, only the dates and events leading to the material circumstances shall be referred to hereinafter.

3. With respect to the determination of the parties, it is noted that the suit was instituted by the Appellant (Plaintiff before the Trial Court) against Smt. Kalawati Mathrani (Original Defendant before the Trial Court), who passed away on 25.08.2005, through next friend Mr. Ranjit Mathrani. Upon her demise, her legal heirs, namely Mr. Ranjit Mathrani, Mr. Nirmal Mathrani, Ms. Aparna Choudhary, and Ms. Sheila Mathrani, were brought on record as Defendant Nos.1 to 4 respectively and are now the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before this Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall be referred in accordance with their status before the LSJ.

5. The Original Defendant and the Plaintiff executed an agreement to sell dated 24.04.2000 in favour of the Plaintiff for purchase of suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore and Fifty Lakhs Only), 15% out of the said amount, i.e., Rs.1,12,50,000/- (Rupees One Core Twelve Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only), undisputedly stands paid by the Plaintiff. This amount comprises of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Only) paid towards earnest money deposit and Rs.37,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) towards an additional part payment, the receipt of which is not disputed by the Defendants. The said agreement stipulated that the sale transaction shall be completed by making the full and final payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,37,50,000/- (Rupees Six Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) within 30 days from the communication of statutory approvals.

6. Since the core issue before this Court finds its genesis in the agreement, it becomes essential to examine the relevant clauses therein. This is particularly necessary to establish the Plaintiff’s continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as to ascertain the point at which the period of limitation was triggered. Accordingly, the relevant contents of the said agreement are extracted hereinbelow:

“NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT TO SELL WITNESSETH AS UNDER:-

1. That in consideration of the sum of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs only) out of which a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs only) as earnest money and part payment has been received by the Vendor from the Vendee vide Seven Pay