Case Note & Summary
The appellant/defendant Sebastian filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated January 3, 2017 passed by the Principal District Court, Thiruvarur in O.S. No.11 of 2014, which decreed the suit for specific performance in favor of the respondent/plaintiff Kattari @ Selvaraj. The suit properties belonged to the defendant, who had purchased them through registered sale deeds. On December 20, 2010, the defendant agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for Rs.13,00,000/- and received Rs.4,00,000/- as advance, executing an unregistered sale agreement. The agreement stipulated that the plaintiff would pay Rs.3,00,000/- on or before April 30, 2011, and the balance of Rs.6,00,000/- on or before April 30, 2012. The plaintiff claimed he was always ready and willing to perform his part and had been in possession since the agreement. The defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction (O.S. No.85 of 2012) against the plaintiff, which was pending. The plaintiff then filed the present suit for specific performance. The defendant admitted the agreement and receipt of advance but contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing, failed to make payments on time, did not deposit the balance amount, and the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court framed issues on entitlement to specific performance and limitation. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that time was not the essence of the contract and the plaintiff was ready and willing. The defendant appealed. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiff did not deposit the balance amount in court or tender it to the defendant, nor did he prove readiness and willingness. The suit was filed on January 6, 2014, beyond three years from the last date fixed for payment (April 30, 2012), and was thus barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court held that even if time was not the essence, the plaintiff must perform within a reasonable time. The appeal was allowed, the trial court decree set aside, and the suit dismissed. The defendant was directed to return the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - Failure to deposit balance amount in court or tender performance indicates lack of readiness - Held that mere filing of suit without deposit or tender does not satisfy Section 16(c) (Paras 10-15). B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for Specific Performance - Limitation period of three years from date fixed for performance or from notice of refusal - Where time is not essence, suit must be filed within reasonable time - Held that suit filed beyond three years from last date fixed for payment is barred by limitation (Paras 16-20). C) Contract Act, 1872 - Time not essence of contract - Even if time is not essence, plaintiff must perform within reasonable time - Failure to pay balance amount within stipulated period and delay in filing suit disentitles plaintiff to discretionary relief of specific performance (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of trial court dated January 3, 2017 in O.S. No.11 of 2014 set aside. Suit dismissed. Defendant directed to return advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realization.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Limitation
- Time not essence of contract
- Deposit of balance amount
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Article 54 Limitation Act
