Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment of the Third Extra Assistant Judge, Solapur, which confirmed the decree of specific performance of contract passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Mangalwedha. The plaintiff-respondent, Balasaheb Krishna Khandagale, had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 5.6.1973 executed by deceased Namdeo Bapu Khandagale, the original owner of the suit land. The consideration was Rs. 7,000, which was paid in full. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed would be executed after obtaining necessary permission for sale. However, Namdeo died on 29.9.1973 before the permission could be obtained. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 28.10.1974 to the legal representatives (defendants) calling upon them to perform the contract, but they gave an evasive reply. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit on 19.12.1974 for specific performance and, in the alternative, for refund of earnest money. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed it. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part. The High Court, after examining the evidence, held that the suit was within limitation as the agreement did not fix a specific date for performance, and the suit was filed within three years of the notice. The court also found that the plaintiff had pleaded and proved readiness and willingness, as he had paid the full consideration and issued a notice. The court further held that the agreement was for necessity (marriages of daughters and household expenses), and therefore, the legal representatives were bound to execute the sale deed. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree - In the present case, plaintiff issued notice and filed suit within limitation, and the courts below concurrently found readiness and willingness - No interference in second appeal (Paras 1-6). B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Agreement to Sell - Legal Representatives - An agreement to sell executed by a deceased vendor for necessity binds his legal representatives - The suit land was sold for performing marriages of daughters and household expenses, which constitutes necessity - Legal representatives are liable to execute the sale deed (Paras 2-5). C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for Specific Performance - Limitation period is three years from the date fixed for performance, or if no date is fixed, from the date of notice - In this case, the agreement was dated 5.6.1973, notice was issued on 28.10.1974, and suit was filed on 19.12.1974 - Suit is within limitation (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for specific performance of contract is maintainable against the legal representatives of the deceased vendor and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, confirming the decree for specific performance of contract.
Law Points
- Specific performance of contract
- Agreement to sell
- Legal representatives bound by contract
- Necessity
- Limitation
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 54 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
