The Supreme Court dismissed a suit for specific performance, which arose from an Agreement to Sell (ATS). The court observed that the ATS was dated 31.07.1975, and the suit was filed by the respondent Anjuman (now represented by legal heirs) on 01.01.1981. According to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation for such a suit is 3 years from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, from the date when the plaintiff has notice of performance refusal.
The court also noted that even after five and a half years, the plaintiff's pleadings did not mention the readiness and willingness of the respondent to fulfill their obligations under the ATS and pay the remaining amount. Given this, the court concluded that the suit could be dismissed solely on the basis of limitation.
This litigation originated from an Agreement to Sell (ATS) executed by the appellants in favor of the respondents on 31.07.1975. The ATS stipulated that the appellants had to seek permission from the District Magistrate to sell the property within eight days. Upon receiving permission, they were required to inform the respondents, and the Sale Deed had to be executed within 15 days of such notification to the respondents. However, the appellants failed to apply for the necessary permission, leading the respondents to file a suit for specific performance of the ATS on 01.01.1981. The suit was decreed by a judgment dated 08.03.1982.
Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the failure of the appellants to fulfill their duty of applying within 8 days or not informing the respondents of permission being granted gave the respondents the right to approach the court.
In this context, the respondents cannot argue that they have the right to wait indefinitely for the appellants to inform them about the permission. Once the initial eight days passed, the respondents were expected to be vigilant, aware of their rights, and act promptly.
The appellants argued that the respondents had not taken any action despite the appellants not applying for permission for five years, suggesting the respondents were not willing to fulfill their part of the contract. They claimed the suit was time-barred. On the contrary, the respondents argued that since the appellants hadn't even applied for permission and thus hadn't informed the respondents, the suit wasn't subject to limitation. They asserted that the suit was filed within the legal timeframe.
It's crucial to highlight that Clause 4 of the agreement stated that if the appellants failed to apply for permission within the specified time 'or' if they didn't inform the respondents after obtaining permission and didn't execute the deed in favor of either the respondents or someone of their choice, then the respondents had the right to execute the sale of the property in question through the court and also take possession through the court.
Considering the context, the Court concluded that a combined and consistent interpretation of the applicable clauses showed that the appellants were responsible for applying for permission within 8 days and, upon receiving permission, informing the respondents. After that, it was the respondents' duty to execute the Sale Deed within 15 days. It was made clear that if they failed to do so, by either not applying for permission 'or' not informing the respondents upon permission receipt, the respondents had the right to seek court intervention for executing the sale and gaining possession.
Hence, from the ninth day onward, the responsibility would shift to the respondents if the appellants had not applied for permission within the initial 8 days.
The court also noted that for five and a half years, the respondents had not given any notice to the appellants, indicating the reasons for their extended wait. They didn't convey their willingness to fulfill their part of the ATS, or explain why the appellants had not fulfilled their obligations under the ATS. Additionally, there was no mention in the entire complaint that the respondents had ever contacted the appellants or provided notice that they were ready and willing to pay the remaining amount and execute the Sale Deed. This lack of communication did not favor the respondents' case.
The Court held that there was no discernible valid or justifiable reason in the record for the respondents to delay filing the suit for five and a half y
TAGS: Court's observation Onus on appellants Lack of notice No communication Delay in filing suit.
