Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

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