1964 (11) TMI 112 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in granting a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff.
2. Whether the plaintiff's delay in filing the suit for specific performance should bar relief.
3. Whether the plaintiff's reasons for the delay were valid.
4. Whether the defendant's repudiation of the contract and subsequent actions affected the plaintiff's right to specific performance.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in granting a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court's decision and granting specific performance. The High Court found that the plaintiff's delay was due to his wife's illness and the demolition of his house by the Municipal Corporation. It concluded that the plaintiff had not abandoned or waived his right under the contract and that the 1st defendant acted in bad faith by rushing to construct a building on the disputed plots to defeat the plaintiff's claim. The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in exercising its discretion against the plaintiff and thus granted specific performance.

2. Whether the plaintiff's delay in filing the suit for specific performance should bar relief:
The Supreme Court considered the argument that mere delay in filing the suit should be a ground for refusing specific performance. The Court referred to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, which states that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary but must be exercised in accordance with sound and reasonable judicial principles. The Court emphasized that mere delay, without more, extending up to the statutory period of limitation (three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act), cannot be a reason to deny relief. The Court noted that the English principles of equity regarding delay do not apply in India due to the statutory limitation period.

3. Whether the plaintiff's reasons for the delay were valid:
The Supreme Court reviewed the plaintiff's reasons for the delay in filing the suit, which included his wife's illness and the demolition of his house. The High Court had accepted these reasons, and the Supreme Court found no reason to disagree. The Court noted that the plaintiff's wife continued to be ill even after the auction and that the demolition of the house likely occurred after the auction. The Court concluded that these circumstances reasonably explained the plaintiff's delay and did not amount to a waiver or abandonment of his right.

4. Whether the defendant's repudiation of the contract and subsequent actions affected the plaintiff's right to specific performance:
The Supreme Court addressed the defendant's argument that the plaintiff did not accept the repudiation of the contract and thus kept it alive, committing a breach by not paying the earnest money. The Court rejected this argument, noting that it was not raised in the pleadings or argued in the lower courts. The Court also dismissed the relevance of English case law cited by the defendant, emphasizing that Indian law, which prescribes a limitation period for filing suits for specific performance, does not support the refusal of relief based solely on delay. The Court found no evidence that the plaintiff's conduct induced the defendant to change his position to his detriment, as the defendant had consistently claimed there was no contract.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant specific performance, concluding that the plaintiff had not abandoned or waived his right, and the delay was reasonably explained. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.