LexFATEHJI & COMPANY & ANR. versus L.M. NAGPAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 389 FATEHJI & COMPANY & ANR. v. L.M. NAGPAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3912 Of 2015) APRIL 24, 2015 A B [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963 - Art. 54 - Suit for specific performance of contract- Limitation period- Suit for specific c performance of sale agreement filed by the plaintiffs on 29. 4. 1994 against the defendants - Performance of contract was fixed till 2. 12. 73, however, by subsequent letters defendants sought extension of time till 1.2.1977 - Application u/Or. VII r. 11 seeking rejection of the plaint as D barred by limitation - Trial court held that the suit was barred by limitation - However High Court set aside the order of the trial court - On appeal, held: Last extension sought for by the defendants expired on 1. 2.1977 - Suit seeking specific performance was filed much beyond the period of three years E - On facts, averment by the plaintiff that the last and final cause of action accrued and arose to them after 1991 when the defendants succeeded in hiding themselves and started avoiding the plaintiffs, cannot be accepted - Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial F court is restored- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VII r. 11. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The fact that the plaintiffs were put in G possession of the property agreed to be sold on the date of agreement itself would not make any difference with regard to the limitation of filing the suit for specific performance. In fact both the courts below rightly held that Article 54 of the Limitation Act does not make any H 389 390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2015] 6 S.C.R. A difference between a case where possession of the property has been delivered in part performance of the agreement or otherwise. In the same way the courts below concurrently held even if any permission is to be obtained prior to the performance/completion of the B contract, the mere fact that the defendants have not obtained the said permission would not lead to inference that no cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance would arise. Further it is also not the case for postponing the performance to a future date without C fixing any further date for performance. [Para 7) [394-E- H; 395-A] 1.2 The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that the last and final cause of action accrued and arose to them after D 1991 when the defendants succeeded in hiding themselves and started avoiding the plaintiffs and the cause of action being recurring and continuous one, they filed the suit on 29.4.1994. The original cause of action E became available to the plaintiffs on 2.12.1973 the date fixed for the performance of the contract and thereafter, the same stood exter.ded till 1.2.1977. Though the plaintiffs claimed that oral extension of time was given, no particulars as to when and how long, were not F mentioned in the plaint. The suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs on 29.4.1994, much beyond the period of three years. On the other hand even after knowing the dishonest intention of the sons of the second defendant with regard to the suit property in the G year 1985, the plaintiffs did not file the suit immediately. The suit having been filed in the year 1994 is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The High Court erred in reversing the well considered order of H the trial court rejecting the plaint as barred by limitation FATEHJI & COMPANY & ANR. v. L.M. NAGPAL & ORS. 391 and the impugned judgment is set aside. [Para 9, 1 O] A [395-D-H; 396-A] Ahmadsahab Abdul Mui/a (2) (Dead) by proposed Lrs. · 8 vs. Bibijan and ors. 2009 (5) SCR 476 : (2009)5 SCC 462; Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee 2012 (6) SCR 404 : (2012) 8 SCC 706; S. c · Brahmanand and ors. vs. K.R. Muthugopal (Dead) and ors. 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 461: (2005) 12 SCC 764; Panchanan Ohara and ors. vs. Monmatha Nath Maity (Dead) through Lrs. and Anr. 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 520: (2006) 5 SCC 340; Nitanjan Kumar and ors. vs. Dhyan Singh and Anr. (1976) 4 D sec 89 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2009 (5) SCR 476 Referred to. Para 5 2012 (6) SCR 404 Referred to. Para 5 E 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 461 Referred to. Para 5 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 520 Referred to. Para 5 (1976)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.