LexSABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS versus ANJUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CASE DETAILS
SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
v.
ANJUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: (i) Whether the suit for specifi c performance
was fi led within the period of limitation; (ii) Whether the respondents were
ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
Suit – Specific performance – Limitation – Readiness and
willingness to perform contract – Respondents fi led suit for specifi c
performance – The suit was decreed – The First Appellate Court
dismissed the suit – The respondents thereafter fi led Second Appeal,
which was allowed by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: Clause 3 of the agreement to sell (dated 31.07.1975) thereof
stipulates that the appellants within 8 days from that date, for sale of the
property, would apply for permission before the District Magistrate –
Thereafter, it was stipulated that within 15 days from such intimation,
the respondents shall get the Sale Deed executed either in their favour or
in favour of a person of their choice and the expenses would be borne by
the respondents – Appellants did not apply for any permission to sell –
Respondents fi led suit on 01.01.1981 for specifi c performance of the ATS
– From the ninth (9th) day onwards, the onus had shifted on the respondents,
if within 8 days the appellants had not even applied for permission – As soon
as the fi rst eight days expired, the respondents had to show due diligence
by being vigilant and conscious of their rights and were required to act
promptly – There is nothing on the record to fathom a valid or justifi able
reason for the respondents to have waited for fi ve and a half years before
instituting the suit – Also, from their own pleadings in the plaint, even after
fi ve and a half years, there being no averment that the respondents were
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1127 : 2023 INSC 898
1127
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
ready and willing to perform their obligations under the ATS and pay the
balance/remaining amount is enough for the suit of the respondents to be
dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – The limitation for fi ling a suit
for specifi c performance, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963 is 3 years – In the instant case, the Agreement to Sell is dated
31.07.1975 and the suit was fi led on 01.01.1981 – The judgment and order
passed by the First Appellate Court, dismissing the suit, stands restored.
[Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Ghewarchand v. Mahendra Singh (2018) 10 SCC 588 : [2018] 11 SCR
738; Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Offi cer (2013) 14 SCC 81 : [2013] 8
SCR 227 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2018 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 1574 of 1984.
Appearances:
P. K. Jain, Saurabh Jain, S. P. Singh Rathore, P. K. Goswami,
Arunansh Bharati Goswami, Kafeel Ahmed, Sujit Kumar Jha, Advs. for
the Appellants.
Nizam Pasha, Ms. Aayushi Mishra, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advs. for
the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1129
SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. ANJUMAN (SINCE
DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
3. Both the original parties to the agreement to sell being dead, are
now represented through their Legal Representatives (LRs). Appellants are
LRs of the defendant whereas the Respondents are the LRs of the plaintiff .
4. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order
dated 18.07.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”)
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred
to as “the High Court”) in Second Appeal No.1574 of 1984 by which the
second appeal fi led by the respondents was allowed; judgment of the First
Appellate Court was set aside, and; judgment of the Trial Court was affi rmed
and restored.
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
5. An Agreement to Sell (hereinafter referred to as “ATS”) was
executed in favour of the respondents by the appellants on 31.07.1975. The
ATS envisioned that the appellants had to apply for permission to sell the
property within eight days and upon permission being received, the same
was to be intimated to the respondents and the Sale DeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.