A. Valliammai vs K.P. Murali and Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

12 September 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2023

Result

Disposed

Bench

Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi

Citation

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 183 : 2023 INSC 823

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and if the High Court erred in affirming the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the trial court. Specific Performance – No time fixed for performance of contract – Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 – Applicability:

Headnote

Held: Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act stipulates the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance as three years from the date fixed for performance, and in alternative when no date is fixed, three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused – In the present case, it is an accepted position that an advance was paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dtd.26.05.88, and the balance consideration was required to be paid by 26.05.89 – However, time for payment thereof and execution of the sale deed was extended till 26.11.89 vide endorsement dtd. 26.05.89 – If, 26.11.89 is taken as the date for performance, the suit for specific performance filed on 27.09.95 is barred by limitation – However, the aforesaid time, as fixed vide the agreement to sell and the endorsement, was not the essence of the contract and therefore, the first part of Article 54 will not be applicable – Instead, the second part of Article 54 will apply – The 3-year limitation period to file a suit for specific performance commenced as early as when the respondent no.3 had filed suit for injunction on 15.07.91 – Appellant’s (in C.A.No. 5342 of 2023) reply dtd. 09.08.1991 or reply to rejoinder dtd. 16.09.1991 were again sufficient written notice to respondent no.3 of her refusal and unwillingness to perform the agreement to sell – The limitation period of three years under the second part of Article 54, which is from the date when the party had notice of the refusal by the other side, had expired when the suit for specific performance was filed on 27.09.1995 – Thus, suit for specific performance filed by respondent no.3’s assignees (‘KPM’ and ‘SPD’) is barred by limitation – Impugned judgment and decree for specific performance affirmed by the Division Bench, set aside – However, on facts, to do substantial justice, a decree of Rs.50,00,000/- is passed in favour of ‘KPM’ and ‘SPD’ against the appellant, on failure to pay the same within 6 months, appellant to pay interest @ 8% – Civil Appeal Nos. 5343, 5344 and 5345 of 2023 filed by subsequent purchasers of portions of the suit property, allowed – Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2023 filed by appellant is allowed to the extent indicated Constitution of India – Article 142 – Contract Act, 1872 – s.63. [Paras 20, 21 and 27-29]

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J. I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023. 1. I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023, for permission to take on record additional evidence in the nature of documents, are not opposed. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023 are allowed. The documents are taken on record. S. Nos. 2 – 12 in I.A. No. 1 of 2017 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-1– S-111 , and S. Nos. 2 – 4 in I.A. No. 27407 of 2023 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-12 – S-142 . C.A. Nos. 5342-5345 of 2023. 1. The impugned judgment by the Division Bench of the Madras

View Subscription Plans →