Case Note & Summary
Background: This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant against the order of the trial court rejecting their application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking rescission of a compromise decree passed in a suit for specific performance. Facts: The respondent-plaintiff had filed O.S.No.259/2001 seeking specific performance of agreements of sale dated 28.03.1999 and 27.11.2000. The defendant (since deceased) conceded the decree, and on 25.08.2004, the trial court passed a conditional decree directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff within two months. The defendant died on 19.08.2004, and his legal representatives were brought on record. The plaintiff did not pay the balance consideration within the stipulated time. The defendants issued legal notices on 02.09.2004 and 04.11.2004 calling upon the plaintiff to perform his obligations, but the plaintiff replied taking various stands. The plaintiff filed Execution Case No.17/2005 along with an affidavit; the defendants objected, contending that the decree was not executable due to non-performance of conditions. On 11.03.2010, the trial court rejected the objections. The defendants filed a miscellaneous appeal. Meanwhile, the defendants filed an application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the decree. The plaintiff, without seeking any extension of time, deposited part of the balance sale consideration before the executing court, which was accepted. The trial court, by order dated 31.08.2017, rejected the rescission application on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Legal Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the application for rescission was barred by limitation, and (ii) whether the plaintiff's deposit without extension of time cured the default and rendered the decree executable. Arguments: The petitioners contended that the decree was conditional and the plaintiff failed to comply within the stipulated time; the plaintiff's subsequent deposit in execution proceedings without extension of time was invalid; the trial court erred in applying Article 59 as no limitation was prescribed for Section 28 applications; and that the defendants' objections in execution proceedings amounted to a prayer for rescission. The respondent argued that the defendants had not provided clear title or survey, that the deposit was made before the rescission application, and that the application was barred by limitation. Court's Analysis and Decision: The provided judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final reasoned order or decision of the High Court. The matter was heard and reserved, and the order was pronounced on 25.07.2025, but the details of the court's analysis and holding are not included in the extracted portion. Therefore, the final decision is Not mentioned.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application for rescission of contract under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as barred by limitation, and whether the decree holder's deposit of balance consideration in execution proceedings without extension of time validates the conditional decree.
Law Points
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963 Section 28(1) rescission of contract
- conditional decree
- limitation under Limitation Act
- 1963 Article 59
- requirement of extension of time by decree holder
- deposit in execution court not substitute for extension
- objections in execution proceedings not equivalent to rescission application
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 35
W.P. No.54203/2017 (GM-CPC)
T. Seshagiri Rao for petitioners, Ramachandra G. Bhat for respondent
Smt. N. Sumangala, Sri K.V. Gopal, Sri K.C.B. Gowda (legal heirs of late L.C. Krishnaiah)
Sri Krishna Joshi, Smt. Suchetha Rajanna, Smt. Devika K, Smt. Kasturi K
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court's order rejecting an application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to rescind a conditional decree passed in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (legal heirs of original defendant) sought to quash the order dated 31.08.2017 and allow their application to rescind the decree dated 25.08.2004 in O.S.No.259/2001.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Petitioners contended that the decree holder failed to perform his obligations under the conditional decree within the stipulated time, and the deposit of balance consideration in execution proceedings without seeking extension of time did not cure the default.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in O.S.No.259/2001 passed a conditional decree on 25.08.2004 directing the defendant to execute sale deed on payment of balance sale consideration within two months. The defendant's objections in execution were rejected on 11.03.2010. The application under Section 28(1) was rejected on 31.08.2017.
Issues
Whether the application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether the decree holder's deposit of balance sale consideration in execution proceedings without first seeking extension of time satisfies the conditional decree and defeats the defendant's right to seek rescission.
Whether the defendant's objections filed in execution proceedings can be treated as an application for rescission under Section 28(1).
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the decree was conditional and the plaintiff failed to pay the balance consideration within two months; the defendant's notices calling for performance were ignored; the plaintiff's deposit in execution proceedings without extension of time was impermissible; the trial court wrongly applied Article 59 as no limitation is prescribed for Section 28 applications; and the objections in execution amounted to a prayer for rescission.
Respondents argued that the defendant did not provide clear title or conduct survey, preventing the plaintiff from knowing the exact extent of land to pay for; the deposit was made before the rescission application and was accepted by the executing court; the rescission application was filed belatedly and barred by limitation; and the petitioners' failure to provide succession certificate or legal heir details caused delay.
Judgment Excerpts
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 28.03.1999 and 27.11.2000.
The Trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the application of the defendant mainly on the ground that the application is filed beyond the period of limitation.
The application for rescission ought to have been filed before filing of the memo by the respondents and before any amount is deposited before the Execution Court.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed O.S.No.259/2001 for specific performance of sale agreements. Suit decreed conditionally on 25.08.2004. Original defendant died on 19.08.2004, his legal heirs substituted. Plaintiff did not pay balance consideration within two months. Defendant's legal heirs issued notices. Plaintiff filed Execution Case No.17/2005; defendant's objections rejected on 11.03.2010. Miscellaneous appeal filed. Petitioners filed application under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act seeking rescission of decree; rejected by trial court on 31.08.2017 on ground of limitation. Petitioners filed present writ petition under Article 227 challenging said rejection.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 28(1)
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 59
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
