2012 (12) TMI 1170 - SC - Indian Laws

Market Price of the suit property - Execution of sale Deed - Decree for Specific Performance - Bar of limitation - The plaintiffs have invoked the provisions of Section 15 (5) of the Limitation Act 1963 to claim the benefit of the exclusion of the period during which the defendant was absent from India. There can indeed be no doubt that if the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period of such absence the bar of limitation will not apply to the present suit. Whether Decree for Specific performance should be granted at the belated time of agreement . HELD THAT - The long efflux of time (over 40 years) that has occurred and the galloping value of real estate in the meantime are the twin inhibiting factors in this regard. The same have to be balanced with the fact that the plaintiffs are in no way responsible for the delay that has occurred and their keen participation in the proceedings till date show the live interest on the part of the plaintiffs to have the agreement enforced in law. Therefore to direct specific performance of an agreement and that too after elapse of a long period of time undoubtedly has to be exercised on sound reasonable rational and acceptable principles. The parameters for the exercise of discretion vested by Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 cannot be entrapped within any precise expression of language and the contours thereof will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It must be emphasized that efflux of time and escalation of price of property by itself cannot be a valid ground to deny the relief of specific performance. After consideration to all relevant aspects of the case for the ends of justice would require this court to intervene and set aside the findings and conclusions recorded by the High Court and to decree the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement. further sale deed that will now have to be executed by the defendants in favor of the plaintiffs will be for the market price of the suit property as on the date of the present order. As no material whatsoever is available to enable us to make a correct assessment of the market value of the suit property as on date Apex court request the learned trial judge of the High Court of Delhi to undertake the said exercise with such expedition as may be possible in the prevailing facts and circumstance.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the suit is within time.
2. Whether the suit involves mis-joinder of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Whether the written statement has been signed and verified by a duly authorized person.
4. Whether plaintiff No.1 has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement dated 22.12.1970.
5. Whether the defendant has committed the breach of the agreement dated 22.12.1970.
6. Whether plaintiff No.1 has committed breach of any of the terms of the agreement dated 22.12.1977, if so, to what effect.
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 22.12.1970.
8. If Issue No.7 is not proved, whether plaintiff No.1 is not entitled to refund of earnest money and interest thereon.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit is within time:

The court examined the provisions of Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the exclusion of the period during which the defendant was absent from India. The court referred to the precedent set in P C K Muthia Chettiar & Ors v. V E S Shanmugham Chettair, which held that the time during which the defendant was absent from India must be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The evidence showed that the defendant was absent from India for significant periods, and thus, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was within the limitation period.

2. Whether the suit involves mis-joinder of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3:

The judgment did not specifically address this issue in detail, implying that it was not a significant factor in the final decision.

3. Whether the written statement has been signed and verified by a duly authorized person:

The judgment did not elaborate on this issue, suggesting that it was either not contested or not pivotal to the case's outcome.

4. Whether plaintiff No.1 has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement dated 22.12.1970:

The court found that Plaintiff No.1 was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff had repeatedly asserted his readiness to pay any amount to the Income Tax Department as required under Clause 7 of the agreement. The court noted that the defendant failed to show any demand or request made to the plaintiff for payment to the Income Tax Department, supporting the plaintiff's claim of readiness and willingness.

5. Whether the defendant has committed the breach of the agreement dated 22.12.1970:

The court concluded that the defendant was in breach of the agreement. The defendant's insistence on further payments directly to him, rather than to the Income Tax authorities as stipulated in the agreement, was unjustified. The court held that the defendant's demand for an additional amount of Rs. 1 lakh was not supported by the agreement's terms, and therefore, the defendant's failure to execute the sale document constituted a breach.

6. Whether plaintiff No.1 has committed breach of any of the terms of the agreement dated 22.12.1977, if so, to what effect:

The court found that Plaintiff No.1 did not breach any terms of the agreement. The plaintiff's refusal to pay the additional Rs. 1 lakh directly to the defendant was justified, as the agreement only required payments to the Income Tax authorities.

7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 22.12.1970:

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement. Despite the long delay and the significant increase in property value, the court emphasized that the plaintiffs were not responsible for the delay. The court decided that the sale deed should be executed at the current market price of the property, which would be determined by the trial judge of the High Court of Delhi.

8. If Issue No.7 is not proved, whether plaintiff No.1 is not entitled to refund of earnest money and interest thereon:

Given that Issue No.7 was resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, this issue became moot. However, the court noted that the High Court had already granted a refund of the part consideration paid by the plaintiff, along with interest.

Conclusion:

The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The trial judge of the High Court of Delhi was directed to determine the current market value of the property for the execution of the sale deed. The court emphasized fairness and reasonableness in exercising its discretion to grant specific performance, balancing the long delay and increased property value against the plaintiffs' lack of fault and continued interest in enforcing the agreement.

← Previous Next →