SMT. BJSMILLAH BEGUM (DEAD) BY LRS versus RAHMATULLAH KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 284 · Decided: 21-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. BJSMILLAH BEGUM (DEAD) BY LRS 
v. 
RAHMA TULLAH KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS 
JANUARY 21, 1998 
'.S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963-Sec, 16(C)-Execution of sale deed-
Agreement of reconveyance-Jf consideration amount repaid with three years, 
C plaintiff entitled to get back property-Suit for reconveyance-Dismissed on 
the ground that plaintiff failed to repay within the stipulated period-On 
appeal-Held, Time is essence of contract relating to reconveyance of 
immovable property-Amount not paid within the stipulated period-Option 
of reconveyance lapsed 
D 
The appellants were legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, who 
had executed a sale deed in favour of deceased defendant for certain 
J.. 
consideration. Simultaneously an agreement of reconveyance was obtained 
from the defendant stipulating that in case the plaintiff repays the consideration 
amount within a period of three years, he could be entitled to get back the 
E property. A suit for reconveyance was filed by the plaintiff. The said suit was 
dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to 
pi;rform her part of contract within the period stipulated in the reco!lveyance 
agreement. The appeal before the High Court was also dismissed. Hence the 
present appeal. 
F 
The contention of the appellant was that time was not the essence of 
contract in relation to contracts of immovable property. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In contracts relating to reconveyance of immovable property' 
G time is always the essence of the contract. Thus as the amount was not paid 
within the stipulated time, option of reconveyance in favour of the plaintiff 
must be deemed to have lapsed. 1287-G) 
Shanmugam Pillai & Ors. v. Annalakashmi Ammal & Ors., AIR (1950) 
FC 38 and Caltex (India) Ltd v. Bhagwan Davi Marodia, AIR (1969) SC-
H 405, relied on. 
284 
. .., 
B. BEGUM v. RAHMA TULLAH KHAN [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 
285 
A.H. Mama v. Flora Sassoon AIR, (1928) PC 208, held inapplicable. A 
J-
2. 
In the instant case there is no proof that any attitude of the 
defendant towards the plaintiff was the cause for the plaintiff not being able 
to pay the amount to the defendant. The findings of fact arrived at by the 
Courts below that no effort has been made by the Plaintiff to pay the sale 
consideration to the defendant are findings of fact, binding in second appeal. B 
[286-H, 287-AJ 
Manik Lal v. Shankar Lal AIR, (1962) Cal. 103 distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2010 of 1980. 
From the.Judgment and Order dated 17.9.79 of the Allahabad High Court C 
in Second Appeal No. 2376/69. 
J.M. Khanna for the appellant. 
Atul Sharma, K.C.Jain and E.C. Agrawala for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. The appellants are the legal representatives 
of the deceased plaintiff. The suit was filed on 7.2.1958 seeking specific 
performance of a contract of reconveyance dated 8.2. 1955. 
The brief facts of the case are that the appellants' predecessor in 
interest who owned the suit house property in Kanpur executed a registered 
sale deed dated 8.2.1955 for Rs. 2.000 in favour of the sole defendant (who 
D 
E 
has also since died) and also simultaneously obtained an agreement of 
reconveyance from the defendant on the same day. It appears that the said 
agreement for reconveyance stipulated that in case the seller was able to pay 
back the consideration within a period of three years and certain expenses F 
and other monies expended by the purchaser towards repairs, the seller would 
be entitled to get back the property. It is on the basis of the above said 
agreement of reconveyance that the seller filed the present suit on 7.2.1958. 
In the courts below the questions as to whether time was the essence 
of contract and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part G 
of the contract were debated. The courts below held that the plaintiff was not 
,,_. 
ready and willing to perform the contract by way of offering to repay - what 
has quoted in the reconveyance agreement -within the period stipulated 
therein. It was also held that time was the essence of the contract. When the 
matter came up in Second appeal to the High Court it was argued for the H 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 
A appellant - vendor relying upon a decision in the case of A.H.Mama v. Flora 
Sassoon, AIR (1928) PC 208, that time was not the ess
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.