Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras 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