Suit For Declaration Involves All Co-Owners; Limitation Plea Cannot Be Decided At Interlocutory Stage Of Impleadment: Telangana High Court Mere Proof Of Proper Dispatch Sufficient: Bombay High Court Says Trade Marks Registrar Need Not Prove Actual Delivery Of Renewal Notice Casteist Remarks Inside Private Office Without Independent Witnesses Do Not Attract SC/ST Act: Delhi High Court Private Property Transfer Not Void Under Section 64 CPC If Made Before 'Effective' Execution Of Attachment Warrant: Karnataka High Court Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Is Not Substantive Evidence, Cannot Be Sole Basis For Conviction When Victim Turns Hostile: Madras High Court Murder Simpliciter Is Not A Motor Accident; Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act Requires Causal Link Between Death And Vehicle: Supreme Court Mere Involvement Of Car In Chain Of Circumstances Leading To Death Doesn't Attract Motor Vehicles Act: Supreme Court Proclaimed Absconder Cannot Seek Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 528 BNSS: Allahabad High Court Magistrate Cannot Mechanically Discharge Accused Without Recording Reasons Under Section 239 CrPC: Calcutta High Court Trial Courts Must Strictly Follow Mandate Of Section 43D(5) UAPA To Record Prima Facie Finding Before Granting Bail: Delhi High Court Executive Cannot Impose Additional Eligibility Criteria For Statutory Appointments Beyond What Is Prescribed In Parent Act: Karnataka High Court Major Married & Earning Sons Entitled To Compensation For Father’s Death; Dependency Evaluated At Time Of Filing Claim: Gujarat High Court Remaining Extent Of Bequeathed Property After Prior Conveyances Can Be Partitioned Among Legal Heirs: Kerala High Court Exchanging Garlands Not A Recognized Mode Of Marriage; Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suspends License

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