MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI versus SAKEENA BEEVI

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 07-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 395 : 2026 INSC 35
Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji  
v. 
Sakeena Beevi
(Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2022)
07 January 2026
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the trial 
Court as well as the High Court, leading to an unjustified rejection 
of the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by 
the appellant; whether the issue of readiness and willingness was 
also wrongly decided against the appellant and in favour of the 
defendant-respondent; whether the High Court committed grave 
error in the facts as well as in law in dismissing the appeal filed 
by the appellant and affirming the judgment of the trial Court.
Headnotes†
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for specific performance of 
agreement to sell – Rejection of, when not justified – After the 
death of the defendant-respondent’s father, the plaint schedule 
property together with the school building standing thereon 
and all appurtenant improvements, including ownership and 
management of the school, devolved upon his nine children, 
including the defendant-respondent – All the nine legal heirs 
executed an unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) in favour 
of the eldest son who executed an agreement for sale (Exh. A1) 
in favour of the appellant, the date of execution whereunder 
was extended thrice – Respondent revoked the unregistered 
power of attorney (Exh. A4) issued in favour of her brother – 
Later, she executed an affidavit (Exh. A5) ratifying the power 
of attorney (Exh. A4) and the acts carried out thereunder, and 
further expressing her consent to transfer her share in the 
plaint schedule property – Thereafter, the remaining eight 
siblings executed a sale deed conveying their collective 
10/11th share in the entire chunk of land on which the school 
building exists in favour of the appellant – However, later as 
the respondent refused to execute the sale deed in respect of 
her share, the appellant filed suit for specific performance – 
Dismissed by trial Court on the ground of limitation – Appellant 
* Author
396
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
filed appeal before High Court, dismissed on the grounds of 
lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant 
to get the sale deed executed as well as on the ground of 
limitation – Interference with:
Held: Impugned judgments set aside – High Court erred in the facts 
as well as in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant 
and affirming the judgment of the trial Court – The factum of three 
extensions stands duly proved by the appellant – Also, the theory 
projected by the respondent that the power of attorney executed 
by her in favour of her brother stood revoked is ex facie untenable 
and contrary to the record – The affidavit (Exh. A5) executed by 
the defendant which was neither disputed nor denied tilts the 
balance in favour of the appellant which clearly establish that the 
respondent not only ratified the acts performed by the power of 
attorney holder, her brother but also expressly conveyed her no-
objection to the change in management and so also the ownership 
of the school and the properties appurtenant thereto in favour of 
the appellant – Once the two facts, i.e., the publication of notice in 
the year 2012 for revocation of the unregistered power of attorney 
(Exh. A4) and the affidavit dtd.30.04.13 are cumulatively taken into 
account, limitation would start running from the later date because 
it is, at that stage, that the respondent finally refused execution of 
sale deed to the extent of her share in the suit property – Thus, 
the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the trial Court 
as well as the High Court, leading to an unjustified rejection of 
the suit instituted by the appellant – The suit was instituted within 
the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned from the date of 
the affidavit – On facts, the issue of readiness and willingness 
was also wrongly decided against the appellant and in favour of 
the respondent – Appellant entitled to conveyance of the 1/11th 
share of the respondent in the plaint schedule property – Further 
directions issued – Limitation Act, 1963 – Kerala Education Rules, 
1959 – Kerala Education Rules, 2005. [Paras 34-41]
List of Acts
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Kerala Education Rules, 1959; Limitation 
Act, 1963; Kerala Education Rules, 2005.
List of Keywords
Suit for specific performance of ag

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