JANARDHANAM PRASAD versus RAMDAS

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 02-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-;. -
JANARDHANAM PRASAD 
A 
v. 
RAMDAS 
FEBRUARY 2, 2007 
[S.B.SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
'f-
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.20-Defendant agreed to sell land to 
respondent-No time fixed for performance of contract-Respondent within 
.' 
20 days of contract came to know that defendant not ready to perform his 
part of contract-Sale deed registered in favour of appellant-Suit for specific c 
performance filed 3 years after the knowledge that defendant not ready to 
perform his part-Appellant in possession of suit land and also dug a well 
and made improvement on it-In this view, not fit case to exercise discretionary 
jurisdiction under s.20-Defendant directed to refund the advance amount-
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-s.3. 
D 
Defendant no.1 entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to 
the appellant On 11.4.1983, defendant No.1 entered into another agreement 
1 
to sell the same property to the respondent. In the former agreement the 
transaction by way of execution of the deed of sale was to be completed within 
three months, whereas in the latter case, no time limit was fixed. 
E 
Respondent made part payment of the agreed amount. As he was 
working in Saudi Arabia, his affairs were managed by his wife and father-in-
law (PW-1). When he came back from Saudi Arabia in August 1983, May 
1984, as also in 1985, 1986, he asked for execution of the sale deed on receipt 
of the balance amount 
F 
On 4.9.1985, the defendant no.I executed a registered sale deed in 
favour of appellant. Respondent served a notice upon defendant no. I to 
perform his part of contract on 15.9.1986. Thereafter, respondent filed a suit 
for specific performance of contract. 
In the evidence PW-1 stated that within the period of 20 days from the G 
day of agreement of sale dated 11.4.1983, he was aware that defendant was 
1 
not ready to perform his part of contract The suit was dismissed. 
On appeal, First appellate Court decreed the suit. High Court upheld 
the same. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
151 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. The Court, in applying the period of limitation, would first 
inquire as to whether any time was fixed for performance of agreement of 
sale. [fit is so fixed suit must be filed within the period of three years, failing 
which th1: same would be barred by limitation. Here, however, no time for 
B performance was fixed. It was for the Courts to find out the date on which the 
plaintiff had notice that the performance was refused and on arriving at a 
finding in that behalf, to see whether the suit was filed within three years 
thereafter. (Para II] (156-E-FJ 
C on. 
Pukhraj D. Jain & Ors. v. G. Gopa!akrishna, [2004] 7 SCC 251, relied 
D 
RK.Parvatharaj Gupta v. K.C.Jayadeva Reddy, [2006] 2 SCC 428 and 
Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah & Ors. v. Anton Elis Fare/ & Ors., (2006] 3 
sec 634, referred to. 
2.1. Registration of a document as well as possession would constitute 
notice, as is evident from Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
Admittedly, father-in-law and wife of the Respondent No.I had been looking 
after his affairs. They were, therefore, acting as his agents. They would be · 
deemed to have notice of the registration of the docummt as also the 
E possession by the appellant. If they had the requisite notice, Respondent No. 
F 
I, having regard thereto, should have filed a suit for specific performance of 
contract within the prescribed period. In fact they should have done so 
expeditiously having regard to the discretionary nature of relief he may obtain 
in the suit. They did not do so. They waited for more than two years from the 
date of execution of deed of sale. Even if the suit was not barred by limitation 
on that account, it was a fit case, where the Court should have refused to 
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under s.20 of the Specific Relief Act, 
1963. [Paras 13, 14( [157-A; 158-C-Df 
2.2. Father-in-law of Respondent No. 1 categorically stated that he, at 
G all material times, was aware that thl' defendant no. I had refused to perform 
his part of contract. The suit should have, in the aforementioned situation, 
been filed within three years from the said date. The performance of a contract 
may be dependent upon several factors. The conduct of the parties in this 
behalf is also relevant. The parties by their conduct or otherwise may also 
extend the time for performance of contract from time 

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