Summary
The Supreme Court sustained a decree for specific performance in a dispute interrupted by acquisition proceedings that the purchaser successfully challenged. On the facts and the vendor’s obligation to settle property disputes, the Court expressly approved applying Article 113 rather than Article 54 of the Limitation Act, with accrual following refusal after the acquisition was quashed. Given prolonged possession, elapsed decades and the purchaser’s offer, it required Rs 15 lakh payment before conveyance.
Issues
- Whether the specific-performance suit was time-barred in the circumstances of the acquisition proceedings and contractual obligation to clear disputes.
- What payment condition should accompany the decree given the passage of time and purchaser’s offer.
Held
- The vendor’s own representation concerning acquisition acknowledged the agreement and delivery of possession. The trial court’s findings on execution and possession were rightly confirmed by the High Court. (¶ 7.1)
- The Court approved Article 113 on these facts: the vendor had to settle property disputes, the purchaser obtained quashing of acquisition in 1984–85, and suit followed the defendants’ refusal in January 1986. It rejected the trial court’s Article 54 approach based solely on the earlier extended performance date. (¶¶ 7.2, 7.3)
- The purchaser’s conduct in protecting the property from acquisition supported the decree. In view of nearly forty years’ possession, the original price and the purchaser’s willingness to pay more to end litigation, the Court imposed the additional specified payment condition. (¶¶ 7.3, 7.4)
Result
Decree for specific performance sustained and appeal disposed of with directions. Plaintiff to pay Rs 15 lakh to defendants within eight weeks, inclusive of the contractual balance consideration; defendants to execute the sale deed immediately thereafter. No order as to costs.