LI Network
Published on: November 17, 2023 at 11:50 IST
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a civil suit for specific performance filed in 1999, which sought to enforce an agreement to sell executed in 1986.
Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vikram Nath emphasized that the aggrieved party should have taken timely remedial measures instead of waiting for 13 years to file the suit.
The case involved an agreement for the sale of three houses executed in 1986, with the sale deed subject to permission from the Ceiling Department.
The total sale consideration was Rs. 55,000, with Rs. 5,000 paid as earnest money. The respondents, claiming possession of the houses, filed a suit for specific performance, leading to a decree by the Trial Court.
The trial court’s decree was upheld in subsequent appeals, enforcing the agreement to sell. However, challenging the decree, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court noted that two of the houses were already registered in 1999, leaving only one in possession of the respondents.
Key Points Raised:
- The Court emphasized that the vendee (buyer) should have taken action within a reasonable period if permission from the Ceiling Department was required, instead of waiting for 13 years.
- It highlighted that no permission was obtained for the registration of two houses, indicating the need for timely action by the respondent.
- The Court pointed out the lack of specific questioning regarding the necessity of permission during the examination of the Defence Witness.
The Supreme Court concluded that the judgments and decrees enforcing the agreement in the civil suit filed in 1999 could not be legally sustained. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed, setting aside the previous decisions.
Case Title: HAZARI LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. V. RAMESH KUMAR & OTHERS
