TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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.

Latest Legal News