Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

MP High Court: Specific Performance Denied in Land Sale Agreement; Court Stresses Time as Essence of the Contract

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has upheld the denial of specific performance in a contentious land sale agreement. The case, First Appeal No. 168 of 2017, witnessed a legal dispute between Mr. Kanhaiyalal Nankani, the appellant, and respondents Smt. Triveni Awasthi, Smt. Mukta Chourasiya, and Mr. Sanjay Shrivastava.

The legal issue at the heart of the case pertained to the timely execution of the sale agreement and the removal of encroachments from the property. According to the court’s judgment delivered by Hon’ble Shri Justice Arun Kumar Sharma, the appellant sought specific performance of the contract, but the court stressed the significance of adhering to the agreed time frame. The court stated, “Time was the essence of the contract,” and it noted the failure of the appellant to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period.

The dispute arose from a sale agreement entered on 26th July 2007, involving House No. 369 and portions of House No. 341, with a total area of 7944 sq. Ft. The agreement required the removal of encroachments within six months, which did not occur, leading to a series of legal notices and counter-replies.

However, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to deny specific performance, citing that the suit was filed after the expiration of the limitation period. Additionally, the court emphasized the need for prompt action and adherence to contract terms, stating, “The decree for Specific Performance can be denied in case the suit is filed after the lapse of 2 – 3 years but before limitation.”

Date of Decision: 25-07-2023            

KANHAIYALAL NANKANI vs SMT. TRIVENI AWASTHI

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Kanhaiyalal_Nankani_vs_Smt_Triveni_Awasthi_on_25_July_2023_MPHC.pdf"] 

Similar News