Case Note & Summary
The appellant-plaintiff, M/S Universal Associates Developers & Promoters, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11.5.1989 against the respondent-defendant, Shri Bhupat S/o Ratilal Chouda. The defendant was the absolute owner of suit property bearing No.16 measuring 125 feet x 100 feet situated at Jail Garden, Supermarket area, Gulbarga. The agreement was for a total consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- by demand draft on 2.3.1989 and another Rs.12,00,000/- through demand draft, leaving only Rs.50,000/- due. The plaintiff sent the balance amount, but the defendant refused to receive it. The plaintiff claimed he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The plaintiff appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court considered the issue of limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides that a suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The court noted that the agreement did not fix a specific date for performance. The plaintiff's readiness and willingness continued, and the suit was filed within three years of the defendant's refusal to receive the balance consideration. The court also held that the plaintiff satisfied the requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and decreed the suit for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Limitation - Article 54 Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused - In the present case, the agreement did not fix a specific date for performance; the plaintiff's readiness and willingness continued, and the suit was filed within three years of the defendant's refusal to receive the balance consideration - Held that the suit was not barred by limitation (Paras 3-5). B) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Plaintiff must aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - The plaintiff paid substantial advance and was ready to pay the balance, but the defendant refused to accept - Held that the plaintiff satisfied the requirement of readiness and willingness (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11.5.1989 was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 12.12.2011 passed in O.S. No. 92/2008 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gulbarga is set aside. The suit for specific performance is decreed. The defendant is directed to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff within a specified period.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Limitation
- Readiness and willingness
- Agreement of sale
- Section 96 CPC
- Article 54 Limitation Act
