Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1964 - SC - Indian LawsTime Limitation for filing suit - suit is bad for misjoinder of parties in cause of action or not - amendment of agreement of sell - proprietary possession of the entire suit property - subsisting Agreement to sell capable of specific performance - commitment of breach of the contract - plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform the Agreement to sell or not? - time for payment was the essence of the contract or not - Agreement to sell was breached, repudiated, abandoned, and given up or not - specific performance of the Agreement to sell - HELD THAT:- The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the clauses in the Agreement have neither been amended nor varied. Merely because the Defendants were pursuing the application filed for permission before the L&DO, it cannot be said that the date fixed for performance of the Agreement stood extended. The findings of the Courts below have been agreed upon, that the suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.03.1975 which was the date that was fixed by the Agreement. The submission made on behalf of the Plaintiffs that part II of Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to this case and that the suit was filed within limitation as the refusal by the Defendants was only in the year 1987 is not acceptable. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not performed their part of the Agreement within a reasonable period. As per the Agreement, the Plaintiffs were given the right to get the sale deed executed through the Court in case of failure on the part of the Defendants to execute the sale deed by 31.03.1975. The Plaintiffs filed the suit 12 years after the date fixed for performance. The silence maintained by the Plaintiffs for about 12 years amounted to abandonment of the Agreement and the finding in this regard made by the Trial Court is approved. The Courts below have found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the Agreement. The failure on the part of the Plaintiffs in not paying the monthly instalments of ₹ 7,000/-, not collecting the rent from the tenant on the ground floor, not paying the house tax etc., and not taking any action for eviction of the tenant on the ground floor are some of the points held against the Plaintiffs by the Courts below which show that they were not ready and willing to perform their part of the Agreement. There is no compelling reason to re-examine the said findings of fact by the Courts below in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - the Plaintiffs have not proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the Agreement and, therefore, are not entitled to a decree of specific performance. Appeal dismissed.
|