Raman (Dead) by Lrs. vs R. Natarajan

HELD: 1.1 The mistakes committed by the High Court were manifold. First, the High Court framed a question which was actually a question of fact which involved appreciation of evidence and not a substantial question of law. As a consequence, the answer given by the High Court was only a finding of fact. Next, the High Court reversed the finding of the First Appellate Court on the question of limitation, without framing a substantial question of law and without even referring to the statutory provisions. The Agreement is dated 19.06.1993. The Agreement contains four endorsements which are dated 12.11.1995, 11.05.1998, 27.01.2001, 10.07.2005. The defendant raised the question of limitation, on the basis of the fact that the fourth endorsement was made beyond a period of three years from the date of the third endorsement. Such a defence was based upon Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963. But as a matter of fact, the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, in terms of Article 54 of The Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years, “from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused.” But in the entire memorandum of grounds of second appeal filed by the respondent before the High Court, there was no whisper or reference to Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The only substantial question of law framed by the High Court at the time of entertaining the second appeal was not about limitation revolving around Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, the High Court could not have answered the question of limitation in favour of the respondent herein, (i) without framing any substantial question of law; and (ii) without even a reference to Article 54. [Paras 1115][232-G-H; 233-A-E]

1.2 In any case, the High Court ought to have seen that a Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party. In other words, the specific performance of the agreement by the appellants herein, depended upon (i) the appellants entering into an agreement with a third party; and (ii) appellants being in a position to compel such third party to perform her obligations under such agreement. The High Court ought to have seen that the specific performance of the Agreement in question comprised of two parts namely, (i) the defendant entering into an agreement with his brother’s wife for the purchase of a land for providing access to the land agreed to be sold under the suit Agreement of Sale; and

(ii) the defendant thereafter executing a sale deed conveying the property covered by the suit Agreement of Sale. Since the defendant’s brother’s wife was not a party to the suit agreement of sale, the Court cannot compel her to enter into an agreement with the defendant. In other words, the performance of the first part of the obligation, which we have indicated in the preceding paragraph, cannot be compelled by the Court, as it depended upon the will of a third party. As a consequence, the performance of the second part of the obligation, may be hit by Section 12(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. [Paras 16, 17][233-E-H; 234-AB]

1.3 From the pleadings on record, it appears that the case on hand will not even be covered by sub-sections (2), (3) & (4) of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act. Since it is stated very clearly in the suit Agreement of Sale that the land covered by the Agreement will not have any access, unless the defendant entered into an agreement with his brother’s wife, it is clear that none of the exceptions contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section

12 will apply. Even the limited rights conferred by Section 13(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act are not available to the respondent, as there was no legal right in the defendant to compel 3rd parties to convey their land to him for the purpose of providing a pathway to the land agreed to be sold to the respondent herein. Therefore, the High Court committed a grave error in law in granting a decree for specific performance. Hence the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the relief of specific performance claimed by the respondent is rejected. However, there will be a decree directing the appellants to pay to the respondent, the amount of Rs.1,44,400/- paid by the respondent, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of repayment. The parties shall bear their respective costs throughout. [Paras 18-21][234-D-E; 235-A-B]