CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones

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.

Latest Legal News