Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maria Fatima @ Silo Silva Coelho, was the defendant in a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent, Vaman Narayan Kundaikar (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), in Special Civil Suit No. 147/1994 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji. The respondent claimed that the appellant agreed to sell a house property to him for Rs.60,000/- by an agreement dated 11.12.1980, and an addendum/declaration dated 12.12.1980. The respondent was a tenant in possession of part of the house. The appellant failed to execute the sale deed despite receipt of consideration, leading to the suit. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, ordering specific performance. The appellant's first appeal was dismissed by the District Court. The appellant then filed a second appeal in the High Court, which was admitted on three substantial questions of law: (1) whether the suit was barred by limitation; (2) whether the agreement was void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; and (3) whether the Trial Court was justified in exercising discretion to order specific performance. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the cause of action was continuing and the defendant did not repudiate the agreement. The agreement was not uncertain as it contained essential terms. The Trial Court's discretion was justified as the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Specific Performance - Suit Barred by Limitation - The suit for specific performance filed in 1994 based on an agreement dated 11.12.1980 was not barred by limitation as the cause of action was continuing and the plaintiff was in possession as a tenant, and the defendant did not repudiate the agreement until the suit was filed. (Paras 2-10) B) Contract Law - Uncertainty - Section 29 Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Agreement Not Void for Uncertainty - The agreement dated 11.12.1980 contained essential terms including the property description, consideration of Rs.60,000/-, and the parties, and was not uncertain. The addendum/declaration dated 12.12.1980 clarified any ambiguity. (Paras 2-10) C) Specific Relief - Discretion - Specific Performance - Trial Court's Discretion Justified - The Trial Court's discretion to order specific performance was justified as the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite receipt of consideration, and no hardship was shown. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 11.12.1980 was barred by limitation; whether the agreement was void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; whether the Trial Court was justified in exercising discretion to order specific performance.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. The suit was not barred by limitation, the agreement was not void for uncertainty, and the Trial Court's discretion to order specific performance was justified. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation for specific performance
- Section 29 Indian Contract Act 1872 uncertainty
- discretion to grant specific performance
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
