VUNDAVALLI RATNA MANIKYAM & versus V.P.P.R.N. PRASADA RAO

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 06-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
VUNDAVALLI RATNA MANIKYAM & ANOTHER
v.
V.P.P.R.N. PRASADA RAO
(Civil Appeal No. 1204 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 06, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Specific Performance:
Agreement to sell – Entered in 1981  –  Earnest money paid  –
Time extended to pay balance amount – Meanwhile acquisition
proceedings  – In representation by original vendor and vendee for
deletion of the property from acquisition, vendor admitted sale and
possession of the property  to the vendee – Death of original vendor
–  Widow of original Vendor (D1) sold the property to D2  –  Vendee’s
suit for permanent injunction against D1&2 – Also suit for specific
performance of 1981 agreement –  Trial Court admitted execution
of agreement and possession of vendee, but dismissed suit for
specific performance on the ground of delay applying Article 54 of
Limitation Act  –  High Court decreed the suit and applying Art. 113
of Limitation Act held that there was no delay –  Appeal to Supreme
Court by defendants  –  Held: High Court in the facts of the case
rightly decreed the suit holding it as not barred by limitation,
applying Article 113 – However, direction to vendee to pay additional
Rupees fifteen lakhs towards full sale.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that under the agreement to
sell dated 7.5.1981, the sale deed was to be executed within a
period of four months from the date of execution of agreement to
sell i.e. 7.5.1981. However, thereafter time was extended by a
further period of eight months i.e. up to 6.5.1982. However, before
any further steps could be taken by the plaintiff and the original
vendor, the suit property was subjected to the acquisition by the
State Government. It was the plaintiff who made a representation
to the Assistant Collector and requested for deletion of the
property from the acquisition. A similar representation was made
by the original vendor also. In the representations both the
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 607
607
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
vendor and the vendee specifically stated that the land in question
has been sold in favour of the plaintiff and that he is in possession.
Therefore, the original vendor as such admitted the execution of
the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 as well as handing over the
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Therefore, the
trial Court as such rightly believed the execution of the agreement
to sell dated 7.5.1981 as well as handing over of possession to
the plaintiff. The same is rightly confirmed by the High Court.
[Para 7.1][616-C-F]
2. Under the agreement to sell it was for the vendor to
settle all the disputes in the property. As the land in question
was subjected to the acquisition and thereafter the acquisition
proceedings came to be quashed and set aside at the instance of
the plaintiff in the year 1984/1985 and thereafter the plaintiff
served a legal notice upon the defendants on 20.01.1986 calling
upon the defendants to execute the sale deed  which came to be
refused by reply notice dated 31.1.1986 and thereafter the suit
for specific performance was preferred, as rightly observed by
the High Court, Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be
applicable and not Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court
had dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the suit is barred
by limitation considering Article 54 of the Limitation Act though
all other findings with respect to the execution of agreement to
sell, the plaintiff was put in possession etc. were held to be in
favour of the plaintiff. [Para 7.2][617-A-D]
3. Therefore, applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act to
the facts of the present case and the conduct of the plaintiff all
throughout to protect not only his possession but to protect the
property from acquisition and that he was always ready and willing
to perform his part of the agreement to sell/contract, the High
Court has rightly decreed the suit for specific performance. [Para
7.3][617-D-E]
4. However, considering the fact that the agreement to sell
was executed in the year 1981 for a total sale consideration of
Rs. 59,200/- and at the relevant time Rs. 26,500/- was paid as an
earnest money and all throughout the plaintiff enjoyed the
possession and thereafter by now about 40 years have passed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
and as agreed by the plaintiff to pay some more amount to the
defendants, over and above the sale consideration as mentioned
in the agreement to sell, which 

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