LexA. VALLIAMMAI versus K.P. MURALI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CASE DETAILS A. VALLIAMMAI v. K.P. MURALI AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2023) SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 [SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the suit for specifi c performance was barred by limitation and if the High Court erred in affi rming the judgment and decree of specifi c performance passed by the trial court. Specifi c Performance – No time fi xed for performance of contract – Suit for specifi c performance – Limitation – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 – Applicability: Held: Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act stipulates the limitation period for fi ling a suit for specifi c performance as three years from the date fi xed for performance, and in alternative when no date is fi xed, three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused – In the present case, it is an accepted position that an advance was paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dtd.26.05.88, and the balance consideration was required to be paid by 26.05.89 – However, time for payment thereof and execution of the sale deed was extended till 26.11.89 vide endorsement dtd. 26.05.89 – If, 26.11.89 is taken as the date for performance, the suit for specifi c performance fi led on 27.09.95 is barred by limitation – However, the aforesaid time, as fi xed vide the agreement to sell and the endorsement, was not the essence of the contract and therefore, the fi rst part of Article 54 will not be applicable – Instead, the second part of Article 54 will apply – The 3-year limitation period to fi le a suit for specifi c performance commenced as early as when the respondent no.3 had fi led suit for injunction on 15.07.91 – Appellant’s (in C.A.No. 5342 of 2023) reply dtd. 09.08.1991 or reply to rejoinder dtd. 16.09.1991 were again suffi cient written notice to respondent no.3 of her [2023] 12 S.C.R. 183 : 2023 INSC 823 183 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R. 184 refusal and unwillingness to perform the agreement to sell – The limitation period of three years under the second part of Article 54, which is from the date when the party had notice of the refusal by the other side, had expired when the suit for specifi c performance was fi led on 27.09.1995 – Thus, suit for specifi c performance fi led by respondent no.3’s assignees (‘KPM’ and ‘SPD’) is barred by limitation – Impugned judgment and decree for specifi c performance affi rmed by the Division Bench, set aside – However, on facts, to do substantial justice, a decree of Rs.50,00,000/- is passed in favour of ‘KPM’ and ‘SPD’ against the appellant, on failure to pay the same within 6 months, appellant to pay interest @ 8% – Civil Appeal Nos. 5343, 5344 and 5345 of 2023 fi led by subsequent purchasers of portions of the suit property, allowed – Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2023 fi led by appellant is allowed to the extent indicated Constitution of India – Article 142 – Contract Act, 1872 – s.63. [Paras 20, 21 and 27-29] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Pachanan Dhara and Others v. Monmatha Nath Maity, (2006) 5 SCC 340 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 520 – relied on. S. Brahmanand and Ors. v. K.R. Mutugopal, (2005) 12 SCC 764:[2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 461 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in AS No.63 of 2007. With Civil Appeal Nos. 5343, 5344 and 5345 of 2023. Appearances: Ranjit Kumar, Jaideep Gupta, Pallav Sishodia, Sr. Advs., G. Balaji, Ms. Shase, K.S. Mahadevan, Mrs. Swati Bansal, Rangarajan R., Rajesh Kumar, R. Ayyam Perumal, Anand Sathiyaseelan, Rakesh Sharma, Akshay Goel, Anurag Sahay, Rajat Sehgal, Samyak Jain, S. Mahendran, Satyendra Kumar, S. Gowthaman, B. Karunakaran, Mrs. 185 K. Balambihai, Ajith Williyam S, P. Shankar, Ajay Parbu S., Advs. for the appearing parties. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J. I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023. 1. I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023, for permission to take on record additional evidence in the nature of documents, are not opposed. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023 are allowed. The documents are taken on record. S. Nos. 2 – 12 in I.A. No. 1 of 2017 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-1– S-111 , and S. Nos. 2 – 4 in I.A. No. 27407 of 2023 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-12 – S-142. C.A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.