Unexplained 20-year delay after full payment fails to prove willingness for specific performance under Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act.

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.404 of 2017 for specific performance. The suit as well as first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff were dismissed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the appellant has come before this Court.

3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he entered into an Agreement of Sale, dated 14.12.1997 with the respondent for purchase of the agreement mentioned property. As per the terms of agreement, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.50,000/- and the entire sale consideration was paid on the date of agreement. The possession of the suit property was also delivered to the plaintiff. Since no time limit was fixed for performance of the Sale Agreement, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to seek specific performance immediately. However, it is stated that the plaintiff approached the defendant number of times in person and requested them to execute the Sale Deed. However, they evaded the request. Ultimately, on 06.12.2017 the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant seeking execution of sale deed. The defendant having received the notice, failed to give any reply. Hence, the present suit was filed seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 14.12.1997.

4. After receipt of suit summon, the respondent failed to appear and file written statement and therefore, they were set exparte.

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and 3 documents namely (i) suit sale agreement, (ii) legal notice and (iii) postal acknowledgment card were marked on his side as Exs.A1 to A3.

6. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not given any acceptable reason for explaining the delay of nearly 18 years in seeking performance of the agreement and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Namakkal. The First Appellate Court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

7. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law by order dated 16.08.2024:-

“a) Have not the courts below committed an error in dismissing the suit for specific performance on the ground that an unregistered agreement of sale cannot be enforced, when there is no legal hurdle to maintain the suit for specific performance under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908?

b) Whether the Courts below erred in non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground of delay in filing the suit to enforce the sale agreement, especially when the time is not an essence of the contract in respect of immovable property is concerned, after the payment of entire sale consideration to the defendant and handing over possession to the plaintiff?

c) Have not the Courts below committed an error in dismissing the suit by ignoring the fact that the defendant was set ex-parte and not shown any interest to defend the suit in view of the undisputed sale agreement executed for a valid sale consideration?”

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration on the date of Sale Agreement and the possession of the property was also handed over to him and therefore, the Courts below committed error in dismissing the suit on the ground of readiness and willingness, especially in the absence of any defence raised by the de