Mere Delay Cannot Be A Ground For Refusing Specific Performance Relief: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court observed that mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing relief of specific performance.
The Court observed thus in appeals in which the plaintiffs had filed a suit for the relief of specific performance and re-conveyance of suit schedule property.
A Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh held, “It is also important to note that in Paragraph No.16 of the said judgment observed that time lag depending upon circumstances may itself be sufficient to refuse the relief; but, in India mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing the said relief, the statute prescribes the period of limitation.”
Advocate M.B. Chandra Chooda represented the appellants while Advocate G.S. Venkat Subba Rao represented the respondents.
In this case, as per the plaintiffs, a sale agreement was executed in 1995 for sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and out of that, Rs. 40,000/- was paid and remaining balance of Rs. 10,000/- was payable at the time of registration. A registered sale agreement was executed and the first defendant’s husband was one of the executants of the sale agreement. The second defendant was also signatory to the said document and the first defendant’s husband executed the sale agreement on behalf of the minor children also. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for the relief of reconveyance.
The litigation took place between the legal representatives and the Trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.72/2006 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.104/2006. It directed the defendants to execute the sale within two months in terms of the sale agreement and to handover the possession. Being aggrieved, the parties filed appeals before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC. The First Appellate Court confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment and hence, the case was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard, said, “This Court already discussed with regard to the issue of limitation is concerned and also there is no inordinate delay. No doubt, suit is filed after eleven years, but when there is no time stipulated for performance of contract, the fact that original executant and agreement holder also passed away is not in dispute.”
The Court further noted that it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that before filing the suit, for a period of three months, demand was made, but the defendants refused to execute the sale deed and hence they issued legal notice and filed the suit.
“When such being the case, the very contention that Section 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act has not been invoked cannot be accepted. … Having considered the factual aspects as well as the substantial questions of law and so also the question of law, this Court does not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of reconveyance and also granting the relief of specific performance based on the registered sale agreement”, it added.
The Court remarked that there was a delay, but time is not the essence of the contract and the factual aspect of death of original executant and also agreement holder is not in dispute and suit is also inter-se between the legal representatives of original owner as well the legal representatives of agreement holder.
“Hence, I do not find any error on the par of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in dismissing the suit for reconveyance and granting the relief of specific performance, as prayed in the respective suits. Hence, there is no merit in the second appeals to reverse the findings of the Trial Court and the same not suffers from any illegality and discretion is also exercised properly”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title- Chikkamma & Ors. v. Rangaraju & Ors.
