Case Details Sabbir (Dead) through Lrs vs Anjuman (Since Deceased) through Lrs.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

22 September 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1127 : 2023 INSC 898

Issue for consideration

(i) Whether the suit for specific performance was filed within the period of limitation; (ii) Whether the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Suit – Specific performance – Limitation – Readiness and willingness to perform contract – Respondents filed suit for specific performance – The suit was decreed – The First Appellate Court dismissed the suit – The respondents thereafter filed Second Appeal, which was allowed by the High Court – Propriety:

Headnote

Held: Clause 3 of the agreement to sell (dated 31.07.1975) thereof stipulates that the appellants within 8 days from that date, for sale of the property, would apply for permission before the District Magistrate – Thereafter, it was stipulated that within 15 days from such intimation, the respondents shall get the Sale Deed executed either in their favour or in favour of a person of their choice and the expenses would be borne by the respondents – Appellants did not apply for any permission to sell – Respondents filed suit on 01.01.1981 for specific performance of the ATS – From the ninth (9th) day onwards, the onus had shifted on the respondents, if within 8 days the appellants had not even applied for permission – As soon as the first eight days expired, the respondents had to show due diligence by being vigilant and conscious of their rights and were required to act promptly – There is nothing on the record to fathom a valid or justifiable reason for the respondents to have waited for five and a half years before instituting the suit – Also, from their own pleadings in the plaint, even after five and a half years, there being no averment that the respondents were ready and willing to perform their obligations under the ATS and pay the balance/remaining amount is enough for the suit of the respondents to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – The limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is 3 years – In the instant case, the Agreement to Sell is dated 31.07.1975 and the suit was filed on 01.01.1981 – The judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court, dismissing the suit, stands restored. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Ghewarchand v. Mahendra Singh (2018) 10 SCC 588 : [2018] 11 SCR 738; Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 : [2013] 8 SCR 227 – relied on.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDER AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.] 3. Both the original parties to the agreement to sell being dead, are now represented through their Legal Representatives (LRs). Appellants are LRs of the defendant whereas the Respondents are the LRs of the plaintiff. 4. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (herei

View Subscription Plans →