LexUSHA DEVI & ORS. versus RAM KUMAR SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 501 : 2024 INSC 599 Usha Devi & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8446 of 2024) (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2997 of 2023) 05 August 2024 [Vikram Nath and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Respondents had filed a suit for specific performance in September 1993 inter alia seeking execution of sale deed on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 17.12.1989. As per the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and registered within one month, i.e. up to 16.01.1990. The agreement to sell incorporated a clause that the said agreement was valid for five years. The said suit for specific performance was dismissed with costs by the Trial Court. The first appellate court set aside the order of Trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents. In second appeal, the High Court passed the impugned order confirming the order of the First Appellate Court. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the judgment of the first Appellate court vide which Respondents’ suit for specific performance of contract was decreed in their favour even though the suit for specific performance was filed after more than three years from the date fixed for the performance of the contract, on the basis of a clause in the agreement which stated that the agreement will be valid for five years. Headnotes† Suit for Specific Performance of Contract – Limitation for filing – Determination of: Held: The limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for instituting a suit for specific performance of a contract is three years from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused – In the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement – The period of one month would expire on 16.01.1990, and once there is a specific date fixed for performance, 502 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993 – The First Appellate Court and the High Court went on the consideration that the agreement further recorded that it would remain valid for a period of five years from date of the execution of the agreement to sell – Placing reliance on this clause is totally irrelevant – The performance was to take place within one month – The validity of the agreement is something different and does not change the date of performance – As such, the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – Accepting that the plaintiffs-respondents paid an amount of Rs. 80,000/- to the defendant-appellant, and there being no relief claimed for refund of this money, in order to do complete justice between the parties, the amount of Rs. 80,000/- be returned to the plaintiffs along with 12% simple interest by the appellants within three months. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12] List of Acts Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Suit for specific performance; Limitation; Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Agreement to sell; Validity period of agreement; Date of performance. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8446 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2022 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in SA No. 349 of 2005 Appearances for Parties Ajay Kumar, Nirmal Kishore, Keshav Maheshwari, Advs. for the Appellants. Rohit Kumar Singh, Abhishek Sharma, Shivam Sharma, Akash Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. This is the defendant’s appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand [2024] 8 S.C.R. 503 Usha Devi & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Singh & Ors. at Ranchi in Second Appeal No. 349 of 2005, Usha Devi & Ors. versus Ram Kumar Singh & Ors., confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by the respondents. 2. According to the plaint allegations, the facts are as follows: 2.1 The dispute relates to plot No. 2339, situated at Purulia Road, Kumhar Toli, Gali No. 2, Namkum, District Ranchi, which belonged to Kisun Ram, the grandfather of the appellants. However, the plot was sub-divided amongst the co-sharers, and plot No. 2339B of Khata No. 252 came into the share of Bihari
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.