Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Specific Performance: Respondents Cannot Indefinitely Wait for Appellants' Permission: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking legal ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in its decision on September 22, 2023, stressed that respondents in a property dispute cannot indefinitely delay action based on the appellants' communication of permission. The verdict was delivered by the bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Vikram Nath.

The case, which led to this significant judgment, centers around an Agreement to Sell (ATS) executed in 1975. According to the agreement, the appellants were obligated to apply for permission for the sale of the property within eight days and subsequently inform the respondents. Failure to do so would grant the respondents the right to take legal action. It's important to note that the earnest money of Rs.1,000 out of the total sale consideration of Rs.6,000 was paid at the time of the agreement.

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the ATS in 1981, a substantial time after the agreement's execution. This delay raised questions concerning the statute of limitations and whether the suit was time-barred.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court underlined that respondents cannot claim entitlement to an indefinite wait for the appellants to communicate permission, stating, "Respondents cannot take the plea that they would be entitled to indefinitely wait till the appellants informed them about the permission."

Furthermore, the court quantified a refund of earnest money, originally amounting to Rs.1,000, at Rs.1,50,000. The appellants are required to pay this refund to the respondents by January 1, 2024.

This ruling not only provides clarity on the importance of prompt action and diligence in property disputes but also reaffirms the principles of limitation as laid down in relevant legal precedents.

The case referred to various legal acts, including The Limitation Act, 1963, and cited legal precedents such as Ghewarchand v Mahendra Singh and Basawaraj v Land Acquisition Officer. However, the judgment did not specify the representing advocates in the case.

This landmark judgment serves as a precedent for property disputes and emphasizes the necessity for parties to act promptly and diligently in such matters.

Date of Decision: 22 SEPTEMBER 2023

SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS ANJUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

Similar News