Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
By an agreement to sell, the suit- property was to be sold for a sum of Rs.3,65,000/-.It is stated that at the time of the sale agreement, the suit property was worth roughly a sum of Rs.6 lakhs, but the parties finally agreed and the defendant, in particular agreed to sell the aforesaid property for Rs.3.65 lakhs. A perusal of the agreement to sell would show that though clause 3 requires that the balance sale consideration will be paid within three months from the date of the agreement and that the seller will execute the sale deed on the date on which balance sale consideration was paid yet, clauses 5 and 8 clearly show that the original title deeds which are with the mortgagee had yet to be handed over and the mortgage had yet to be redeemed. It is only when this is done that clause 3 would kick in, showing that the time of three months is obviously not of essence.
Later, through several registered letters and notice were serve upon the defendant to comply with the terms of the agreement. Upon, the failure of which ,the present suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff in
The trial Court, by its judgment held that the defendant was attempting to wriggle out of his obligations under the agreement. Further, the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was proved by the fact that he has necessary funds as on the date of the agreement, and thereafter, as was stated by him in his letter dated 18.12.2002. This being the case, the Court ordered specific performance as the balance sale consideration had already been deposited into the Court onthe date of the filing of the Suit.
The first appeal from the aforesaid judgment was dismissed on 20.12.2010 by the Principal District Judge.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the concurrent judgments and held, on a construction of the agreement that since only three months were given to complete the sale transaction, time was of essence.
The Supreme Court has however set aside the judgment of the HC and allowed the appeal, observing that delay in filing suit for specific performance during the limitation period is not a ground for denying relief.
86540
103860
630
114
59824