VAN VIBHAG KARAMCHARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT (REGD.) versus RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 19-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 1045 
VAN VIBHAG KARAMCHARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHKARI 
SANSTHA MARYADIT (REGO.) 
v. 
RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8982 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 19, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL'., JJ.] 
.' . 
A 
B 
Code of Civil procedure, 1908: 0. 2 r. 2 and 0. 6 r. 17 -
Omission to sue for one of several reliefs and inclusion of C 
omitted relief after long time - Cancellation of agreement of 
sale of suit land - Intimation of cancellation - Suit by vendee 
seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction 
over suit land - Inclusion of relief of specific performance by 
way of amendment after about 11 years of filing of the said 
D 
suit - Held: The cause of action to file a suit for specific 
performance arose on intimation of cancellation of agreement 
of sale - Omission to include the relief of specific performance 
in the suit for declaration would be considered as 
relinquishment of that part of claim - Relief of specific 
E 
performance was, therefore, hit by the provision of 0. 2 r. 2 -
Although the inclusion of relief was allowed by way of 
amendment, it would not relatr back to the date of filing of the 
original plaint, in view of the ciear bar under Article 54 of the 
Limitation Act since such inclusion virtually altered the 
F 
character of the suit - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) 
Act, 1976 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Limitation Act, 1963 
- s. 14; Schedule II, Article 54 - Specific performance - Cause 
of action - Delay - Suit. 
The first respondent entered into an agreement of 
G 
sale of suit land with the appellant and received earnest 
money and delivered the posse~sion of the land to the 
appellant. 
1045 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
On 26.4.1985, the acquisition proceedings under the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were initiated in respect of the 
suit land. The appellant filed a writ petition before the 
High Court for quashing the acquisition proceedings. 
The High Court stayed the acquisition proceedings. 
B However, on 3.2.1991, the first respondent issued a 
public notice that he was the owner and in possession 
of the suit land, and any action taken by the appellant 
over such land would not affect his rights of ownership 
and possession over the land since the agreement to sell 
c and power of attorney in favour of the appellant had been 
cancelled. Immediately, thereafter, the appellant filed a 
suit for declaration of ownership and for permanent 
injunction in respect of the suit land. The prayer for 
temporary injunction made by the appellant was 
0 dismissed. The said finding was affirmed by first appellate 
court and, thereafter, not challenged further by the 
appellant. 
On 14.1.1994, when the writ petition for quashing of 
the acquisition proceedings came up for hearing before 
E the High Court, the authorities declared that it had 
withdrawn its scheme. The High Court allowed the writ 
petition and ordered that the land should be reverted to 
the original owner as the acquisition notification was 
F 
quashed. 
On 16.12.2002, the appellant filed an application for 
amendment of the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of 
CPC in the pending civil suit for inclusion of the relief of 
specific performance of contract. The same was allowed. 
G The plaint was returned to the appellant for filing the same 
in the court of competent jurisdiction as the suit 
exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil court. 
Immediately on 25.6.2003, the appellant presented the 
plaint in the District Court along with an application under 
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, praying for exclusion of 
H 
VAN VIBHAG K.G.N. SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT1047 
v. RAMESH CHANDER 
time spent in prosecuting the suit. The trial court A 
dismissed the suit and also the application under Section 
14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court upheld the 
decision of the trial court. The instant appeal was filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The refusal by the first respondent to 
acknowledge the right of the appellant over the land in 
B 
its public notice dated 3.2.1991 furnished the appellant 
with a cause of action to file a suit for specific C 
performance. The period of limitation prescribed in Article 
54 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing a suit 
for specific performance is three years from the date fixed 
for the performance, or if no such date is fixed, when the 
plaintiff has notice that p

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