The Supreme Court of India 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 presided over the case, emphasizing the importance of timely action in legal proceedings.
The case revolved around an agreement for the sale of three houses executed in 1986, with the sale deed contingent upon permission from the Ceiling Department. The total sale consideration was Rs. 55,000, of which Rs. 5,000 was 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. This decree was upheld in subsequent appeals, enforcing the agreement to sell. However, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the decree.
The Supreme Court noted that two of the houses were already registered in 1999, leaving only one in possession of the respondents. The Court highlighted 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. The Court pointed out the lack of specific questioning regarding the necessity of permission during the examination of the Defence Witness.
Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vikram Nath stated,
“The fact also remains that in case such a permission was required, and vendors had not taken any steps within a reasonable period after execution of the agreement to sell on 24.09.1986, the vendee should have taken remedial measures and not waited for thirteen long years.”
They further added,
“The action for enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 should have been taken within limitation from that date instead of waiting indefinitely by paying a meagre amount of ₹5,000/- as earnest money out of the total sale consideration of ₹55,000/-. The aforesaid inaction on the part of the vendee during his lifetime for a period of twelve years certainly goes against him considered in the light of the fact that the civil suit was filed in July 1999 after the sale deed for two houses bearing Nos. 259 and 260, which were in possession of the appellant, was registered.”
The Court concluded,
“the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below enforcing the agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 in a civil suit filed in July 1999 cannot be legally sustained. The same are, accordingly, set aside. The suit filed by the respondents is dismissed.”
This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s stance on the importance of timely legal action and the consequences of inaction in the context of specific performance suits.