Introduction
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that the grant of specific performance of a contract can be refused if the suit was not filed promptly after the breach, even though it was filed within the limitation period. The bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized the importance of prompt action in such cases.
Background
The case involved a property dispute where the appellant, Rajesh Kumar, entered into an agreement to purchase land from Anand Kumar and others. Despite paying part of the sale consideration and seeking extensions for the sale deed’s execution, the appellant failed to promptly file a suit for specific performance after discovering that the property was sold to another party. The suit was filed almost at the last date of the limitation period.
Key Issues
- Delay in Filing Suit: Whether the delay in filing the suit for specific performance, despite being within the limitation period, can be a ground for refusing the relief.
- Readiness and Willingness: The requirement for the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
- Impact of Co-owners: The validity of the agreement executed by a single co-owner without the consent of other co-owners.
Supreme Court’s Insights: Specific Performance and Timeliness
The Court noted that while the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance is three years, this does not mean that a suit can be delayed without valid reasons. The conduct of the plaintiff in promptly pursuing legal remedies is crucial.
“The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for one or two years to file a suit and obtain specific performance.” – Justice Hima Kohli
Supreme Court on Specific Performance and Delay
The Court referred to its earlier decisions, particularly *K.S. Vidyanadam vs. Vairavan*, where it was held that time limits stipulated in the contract cannot be ignored even if the suit is filed within the limitation period. The Court reiterated that suits filed after significant delays, particularly at the end of the limitation period, could be grounds for refusing specific performance.
“Every suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring time limits stipulated in the agreement. The courts will also frown upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal.” – Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Readiness and Willingness
The Court emphasized that the plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. In this case, the plaintiff’s failure to appear in the witness box and instead relying on a Power of Attorney holder’s testimony was insufficient.
“A plaintiff cannot examine in his place, his attorney holder who did not have personal knowledge either of the transaction or of his readiness and willingness.” – Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Impact of Co-owners
The agreement in question was executed by only one co-owner, which further complicated the case. The Court found that without the consent of all co-owners, the agreement could not be enforced against the other co-owners.
“In the event all the co-sharers of the property have not executed the sale agreement, a suit for specific performance cannot be decreed.” – Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Conclusion: Implications of Supreme Court’s Verdict on Specific Performance
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside the trial court’s decree for specific performance, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to act promptly and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.
