9911796707
|
Home
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.
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of the suit. 2. Misjoinder of parties. 3. Amendment and variation of the Agreement. 4. Payment of ?10,000 as an installment. 5. Proprietary possession of the property. 6. Subsistence of the Agreement. 7. Breach of contract by the Defendant. 8. Readiness and willingness of the Plaintiffs to perform the Agreement. 9. Essence of time in the contract. 10. Breach, repudiation, abandonment, and giving up of the Agreement. 11. Entitlement to specific performance and other reliefs. Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation of the Suit: The primary issue was whether the suit was filed within the prescribed limitation period. The Agreement fixed 31.03.1975 as the date for performance. According to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit should have been filed within three years from this date. The Plaintiffs argued that the date for performance was extended due to the conduct of the parties, particularly because the Defendants were pursuing permission from the L&DO. However, the Court concluded that the cause of action arose on 31.03.1975, and the suit filed in 1987 was barred by limitation. The Court cited precedents to support that the vendee cannot delay filing a suit on grounds of unfulfilled conditions in the contract. 2. Misjoinder of Parties: This issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment, suggesting it might not have been a significant point of contention or was resolved in favor of the Plaintiffs. 3. Amendment and Variation of the Agreement: The Plaintiffs claimed that the Agreement was amended to allow payment in installments. However, the Court found no evidence of such amendments or variations. The original terms of the Agreement remained unchanged, and the Plaintiffs' failure to comply with these terms was noted. 4. Payment of ?10,000 as an Installment: The Plaintiffs argued that the ?10,000 paid was part of the installment. The Court did not find sufficient evidence to support this claim, aligning with the Defendants' position that the Plaintiffs did not fulfill their payment obligations as per the original Agreement. 5. Proprietary Possession of the Property: The Plaintiffs claimed they were given proprietary possession of the property upon payment of ?70,000. The Defendants disputed this, stating that the Plaintiffs were never put in proprietary possession. The Court sided with the Defendants, noting that the Plaintiffs failed to prove they had taken possession or fulfilled related obligations like collecting rent and paying taxes. 6. Subsistence of the Agreement: The Plaintiffs argued that the Agreement was still valid and capable of specific performance. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' long silence and inaction amounted to abandonment of the Agreement, thus it was no longer subsisting. 7. Breach of Contract by the Defendant: The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants breached the Agreement by not executing the sale deed. The Court found that the Plaintiffs themselves were not ready and willing to perform their part, and thus, the Defendants' refusal did not constitute a breach. 8. Readiness and Willingness of the Plaintiffs: The Court emphasized that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the Agreement. This included not making timely payments, not collecting rent, and not taking steps to evict the tenant. These failures were critical in denying the Plaintiffs' claim for specific performance. 9. Essence of Time in the Contract: The Court affirmed that time was of the essence in the Agreement. The Plaintiffs' failure to act within a reasonable period (12 years) was seen as a significant factor against them. The Court referenced the principle that even if time is not explicitly of the essence, performance must occur within a reasonable time. 10. Breach, Repudiation, Abandonment, and Giving Up of the Agreement: The Court found that the Plaintiffs' prolonged inaction and failure to perform their contractual obligations effectively amounted to abandonment of the Agreement. 11. Entitlement to Specific Performance and Other Reliefs: The Court denied the Plaintiffs' claim for specific performance due to their lack of readiness and willingness and the suit being barred by limitation. However, acknowledging the Plaintiffs' payment of ?70,000 in 1975 and the significant increase in property value, the Court modified the High Court's order for refund. Instead of ?70,000 with 24% interest, the Defendants were directed to pay ?2,00,00,000 (Rupees Two Crores) to the Plaintiffs within eight weeks. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with the modification of the refund amount to ?2,00,00,000, considering the Plaintiffs' initial payment and the property's increased value over time.
|
