S. BRAHMANAND AND ORS. versus K.R. MUTHUGOPAL (D) AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 21-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S. BRAHMANAND AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
K.R. MUTHUGOPAL (D) AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 21, 2005 
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA ANDC.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Limitation Act, 1963: 
Article 54-Suit for specific performance-Plaintiff entered into an 
agreement with defendant for sale of suit property on l 0. 3. I 989-The original C 
agreement dated 10.3.1989 had a ''fixed date" for performance-However, 
defendant made a request vide letter dated 18.6.1992 for postponing the 
performance to a future date without fixing any further date for performance-
In 1992, plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property-However, during 
the night of 31.8.1995 possession of the suit property was forcibly taken over D 
by the defendant-Trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific 
performance holding that the suit filed on I 5.9. 1995 was within limitation 
since the second part of Art. 54 was applicable and that the plaintiff was 
willing to perform his part of the contract-However, the High Court dismissed 
the suit as barred by limitation on the ground that the original agreement 
dated I 0. 3. I 989 was one in which a date was fixed for performance- E 
Correctness of-Held: It was only on 31.8.1995 that the plaintiff had notice 
of refusal of performance when he was forcibly evicted from the suit property-
Hence, suit filed within I 5 days from this date is perfectly within the period 
of limitation-High Court judgment set aside-Contract Act, 1872, S. 63. 
The appellants-plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the 
respondents-defendants on 10.3.1989 for sale of the suit property. The original 
agreement dated 10.3.1989 had a "fixed date" for performance but by a 
subsequent letter dated 18.6.1992 the defendants made a request for 
postponing the performance to a future date without fixing any further date 
F 
for performance. In 1992, the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit G 
property. However, during the night of 31.8.1995 possession of the suit 
property was taken over by the defendants by breaking open the locks. 
The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance on 
15.9.1995. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the suit filed was 
%1 
H 
.· 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A within limitation as the second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 
was applicable since the plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance only 
on 31.8.1995 and that the plaintiffs were willing to fulfill their part of the 
contract. However, the High Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation 
holding that the agreement dated 10.3.1989 was one in which a date was fixed 
B for performance. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. Judgments which have held the field for a fairly long time 
ought not to be disturbed unless there is a preponderant necessity dictated by 
C the demands of justice to overturn them. It is true that no judgment after 1940 
seems to have noticed that the judgment in Alopi Parshad delivered by the 
Lahore High Court was expressly affirmed by the Privy Council in Lala Ram 
Sarup. It is also possible that if this fact had been brought to the notice of the 
High Courts, the course of the decisions might have taken a different turn. 
Perhaps, the view of this Court might also have been different, if its attention 
D was drawn to the judgment of the Privy Council. Nonetheless, the judgments 
i_n Ramzan and Tarlok Singh being judgments of a coordinate Bench, this 
Court is bound by the observations therein. However, there is no necessity to 
refer the matter to a larger Bench at this juncture as contended by the 
appellants. (47~E, F, G] 
E 
Kashi Prasad v. Chhc.bi Lal, AIR (1933] All 410 2, Alopi Parshad v. 
Court of Wards AIR (1938) Lah 23, Lala Ram Sarup v. Court of Wards AIR 
(1940) PC 19, Kruttiventi Ma//ikharjuna Rao v. Vemuri Pardhasaradhirao, 
AIR 31 (1944) Mad 218, R. Muniswami Goundar v. B.M Shamanna Gouda, 
AIR 37 (1950) Mad 820, Hutchegowda v. H.M Basaviah, AIR 41 (1954) 
F Manipur, Purshottam Sava v. Kunverji Devji, AIR (41) 1954 Saurashtra 104, 
Lakshminarayana Reddiar v. Singaravelu Naicker, AIR 50 (1963) Mad 24, 
Shrikrishna Keshav Kulkarni v. Balaji Ganesh Kulkarnim, AIR 1976 Born 
342, P. Sivan Muthiah v. John Sathiavasagam, (1990) I MLJ 490; Ramzan v. 
Hussaini, (19901 I SCC 104 and Tar/ok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, 
( 19961 8 sec 367' referred to. 
G 
2. Thus, this was a situation where the original agreement of 10.3.1989 
had a "fixed date

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