GOVIND PRASAD CHATURVEDI versus HARI DUTT SHASTRI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 28-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

877 
GOVIND PRASAD CHATURVEDI 
A 
\'. 
BARI DUTT SHASTRI AND ANOTHER 
January 28, 1977 
[A. N. RAY, c. J., M. H. BEG AND P. s. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
B 
. Contract Act-contract relating to sale of immovable property -What is the 
normal presumption regarding stipulation of time-Whether presumption is dis-
placable-Whether the question of time being the essence ef a contract can be 
raised befor,, the HiJ?h Court for the first time in appeal. 
The appellants entered into an agreement with the respondents on March 
24, 1964, for purchasing the suit property belonging to the latter. 
'The terms 
C 
of the agreement provided that the appellant would get the sale deed executed 
upto May 24, 1964, and in case of his failure to do so, the earnest money paid 
by him to the respondent would stand forfeited. The sale deed was not execut-
ed within the prescribed time, and the appellant filed a suit against the respon-
dents for breach of contract. The trial court granted him the relief of specific 
performance of the contract. The respondents succeeded in an appeal before 
the High Court on the ground that time was of the essence of the contract and 
therefore the relief of specific performance could not be granted, and also that 
the appellant had not been ready to perform his part of the contract: 
D 
Allowing the appeal by certificate, the Court, 
HELD : (1) Fixation of the period within which the contraict has lo be 
performed does not make the stipulation as to time, the essence of the contract. 
When a contract relates to sale of immovable property it will 
normally 
be 
presumed that the time is not the essence of the contract. The intention to 
treat time as the essence may be evidenced by circumstances which are suffi-
E 
ciently strong to displace the normal presumption. [881 A-CJ 
Gomathinarayana Pillai & Ors. v. Pa/aniswamy Nadar [1967] 1 SCR 227, 
23\ applied. 
( 2) In the absence of specific pleadings or issues raised before the trial 
court, the question whether the time is of the essence of the contract or not, 
cannot be raised before the High Court in al?peal. [882 B-C] 
( 3) A careful consideration of the evidence and the correspondence between 
the parties shows that the appellant was a·lways ready to perform his part of 
the contract and that the respondents were evading their responsibilities. 
. 
[885 F-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1971. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 20-4-1970 of the 
Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 15 of 1966. 
A. K. Sen, S. T. Desai and P. P. Juneja for the AppellaJJ.t. 
S. V. Gupte and M. V. Goswami for Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KAILASAM, J. This appeal is filed by the plainti.ff against the judi-
ment1 of. the Allahabad High Court on a certificate dismissing the sillt 
for specific performance of a contract of sale elated 24th March, 1964. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l1977] 2 s.c.R. 
The facts of the case are briefly as follows : -
The suit property was owned by one Shri Aditya Narain and the 
plaintiff/appellant became a tenant of the suit property ullder Aditya 
Narain in the year 1942. On 2nd January, 1961 the respQtldents, the 
two defendants in the suit purchased the suit property for Rs. 19,000 
from Aditya Narain and the appellant became tenant of the respon-
dents. 
Soon after the, purchase of the property by the respondents 
they sought to evict the appellant by filing a petition under section 3 
of the U.P. Rent and Evic_tion Act. The appellant resisted and the 
Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the petition holding that the 
respondents' requirement of the premises was not genuine. 
On the 
mediation of Sri Chand Doneria the parties entered into the suit agree-
ment on 24th March, 1964. In pursuance of the agreement the appel-
lant handed over Rs. 4,000 as earnest money to the respondents. The 
terms of the agreement will be set out in due course but suffice it ·at 
this stage to state that it provided that the appellant should get the sale 
deed executed within two months i.e. upto 24th May, 1964 and in case 
the appellant did not get the sale registered within two months the 
earnest money of Rs. 4,000 shall stand forfeited. From the 5th May, 
1964 letters and telegrams were exchanged between the parties but the 
sale deed was not executed on or before the 24th or on the 25th May 
as the parties had agreed. The appellant filed a suit, Civil Suit No. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.