P. DAIVASIGAMANI versus S. SAMBANDAN

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 12-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
199
P. DAIVASIGAMANI
v.
S. SAMBANDAN
(Civil Appeal No. 9006 of 2011)
OCTOBER 12, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Ss. 10, 16 & 20 – Agreement to
sell – default to perform contract – readiness and willingness –
delay in filing of suit – Appellant entered into an agreement to sale
with the respondent in the year 1989 with a stipulation for completion
of the sale transaction in 6 months – Despite respondent’s periodical
correspondences, appellant failed to respond or perform his part
of the contract – Respondent filed a suit for specific performance
before the trial court – Trial court allowed the suit partly, allowing
recovery of earnest money and refusing specific performance in
view of the finding that the respondent could not prove readiness
and willingness as at the time of filing of suit, respondent did not
deposit the balance sale consideration amount in the court–
Respondent appealed before High Court – High Court reversed the
order of the trial court and allowed the appeal, thereby granting
the relief of specific performance to the respondent – On appeal,
held: The period of limitation had started running from the date the
respondent noticed that the performance was refused by the appellant
and not from the date of execution of agreement in question – The
suit was filed by the respondent was well within the prescribed time
u/Art.54 of the Limitation Act – Mere delay alone in filing the suit
for specific performance, without reference to the conduct of the
plaintiff, could not be a ground for refusing the said relief, when
the suit was filed within the statutory time limit by the respondent-
plaintiff – Respondent-plaintiff had not only issued notices within
the period of six months of the agreement in question, calling
defendant to perform his part of contract and conclude sale, he
had also showed his readiness and willingness to perform the his
part of contract by proving same by stepping into witness box –
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 199
199
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
There was due compliance of s. 16(c) read with its explanation on
part of the respondent to perform – No illegality or infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court.
Delay/Laches – Limitation - There is a distinction between
limitation and delay and laches – Limitation is a ground for
dismissing a suit even if the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to specific
performance, while delay operates to determine the discretion and
exercise under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, even if the suit
is not dismissed on account of limitation – However, not one but
several aspects have to be considered when the court, in terms of
section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, exercises discretion, guided by
judicial principles, sound and reasonable.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The period of limitation had started running
from the date the respondent noticed that the performance was
refused by the appellant and not from the date of the execution of
agreement in question. Even though time is not considered as
the essence of the contract in case of immoveable property and
that the suit could be filed within three years as provided in Article
54 of the Limitation Act, the respondent - plaintiff had to perform
his part of the contract within the reasonable time having regard
to the term of the agreement prescribing the time limit. The time
limit prescribed in the agreement cannot be ignored on the ground
that time was not made the essence of the agreement or that the
suit could be filed within three years from the date fixed for
performance or from the date when the performance is refused
by the vendor. The suit having been filed by the respondent well
within the prescribed time limit under Article 54 of the Limitation
Act, the respondent could not have been non-suited on the ground
of the suit being barred by limitation. As regards, the delay in
filing the suit, it is very pertinent to note that the rule of equity
that exists in England, does not apply in India, and so long as a
suit for specific performance is filed within the period of limitation,
delay cannot be a ground to refuse the relief of specific
performance to the plaintiff. Mere delay alone in filing the suit
for specific performance, without reference to the conduct of the
plaintiff, could not be a ground for refusing the said relief, when
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
201
the suit was filed within the statutory time limit by

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