Kolli Satyanarayana (Dead) by Lrs. vs Valuripalli Kesava Rao Chowdary (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

27 September 2022

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 1013 of 2014

Result

Allowed

Bench

Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, C.T. Ravikumar

Citation

[2022] 7 S.C.R. 330 : 2022 INSC 1026

Headnote

Specific performance: Sale agreement – Decree for specific performance – Time limit specified in the agreement – Significance of – Held: When the parties prescribe certain time limit for taking steps by one or the other party, the said time limit cannot be ignored altogether on the ground that time is not the essence of the contract. Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Taking into consideration the fact that the agreement of sale provided that in the event the permission from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to sell the suit property was not obtained within 75 days, the purchaser would be entitled to get back his advance money paid after 75 days but not later than 90 days under any circumstances, the findings of the Single Judge of the High Court cannot be said to be erroneous. After the defendant terminated the agreement on 12th April 1982 stating therein that since the permission from the ULC Authorities could not be obtained, she had cancelled the agreement of sale, the plaintiff did not take any step till 19th February 1984. Only after the ULC permission was granted on 7th February 1984, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19th February 1984. The Division Bench, after elaborately discussing the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement of sale, also agreed with the view taken by the Single Judge. [Para 13, 14][335-D-F]

1.2 Though, the Division Bench of the High Court denied the relief for specific performance to the plaintiff, it has directed the respondents-defendants to refund the advance amount of Rs.15,000/- along with accrued interest or a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in all. [Para 15][335-F-G]

1.3 There is no reason to differ with the concurring judgments passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court denying a decree for specific performance. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and that the defendant had, in fact, received an amount of Rs.15,000/- as early as 1978, the respondentsdefendants are directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellants-plaintiffs, within the stipulated period. [Para 16][335-G-H; 336-A-B]

K. S. Vidyanadam and Others v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC

1 : [1997] 1 SCR 993 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. R. GAVAI, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 17th October 2008 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 26 of 1999, thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the present appellants. 2. Facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The defendant is the owner of the suit property. The defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit property. The total consideration was fixed at Rs.45,315/-. T

View Subscription Plans →