Summary
The Court upheld partial specific performance for 200 of the 300 square yards agreed to be sold, with proportionately reduced consideration. The purchaser’s readiness and willingness were proved, but relief against the transferee of the remaining land was time-barred after his late impleadment. A separate challenge to his conveyance failed for non-joinder of its executant. The vendor could not use her own transfer of part of the property to frustrate enforcement of the balance.
Issues
- Whether the purchaser established readiness and willingness and could obtain partial specific performance.
- Whether late impleadment permitted relief against the transferee and whether his conveyance could be invalidated without the vendor.
- Whether consolidation merged the suits or the Order II Rule 2 bar could be raised without pleading.
Provisions considered
- Section 12, Specific Relief Act, 1963Construed purposively to uphold enforcement of the performable portion with proportionate reduction on these facts. (¶¶ 72, 73, 74, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90)
- Section 21, Limitation Act, 1963Late addition of the transferee did not relate back absent a direction under the good-faith proviso. (¶¶ 79, 80, 81, 82, 83)
- Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The bar required pleading and proof and could not be decided suo motu where not raised. (¶¶ 91, 92, 93)
Held
- The concurrent findings of readiness and willingness were supported by substantial part-payment, tender and a demand draft for the balance. The vendor did not prove the alleged condition requiring cancellation of an earlier agreement. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61)
- A court-fixed period for depositing the balance consideration could be extended. In the circumstances, including the vendor’s pending appeal and the purchaser’s longstanding substantial payment, failure to deposit the further five thousand within the stipulated time did not itself defeat relief. (¶¶ 62, 63, 64)
- The transferee of part of the property was a necessary party. His addition years later, without amended reliefs or a direction giving earlier institution under Section 21, left the specific-performance claim against him barred by limitation. (¶¶ 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83)
- The separate declaration suit could not invalidate the registered conveyance without joining its executant. The transferee’s accrued rights consequently remained unaffected. (¶¶ 84, 85)
- Section 12 permitted enforcement of the remaining portion in this case. A vendor who accepted a major part of the price could not deliberately frustrate the entire contract by transferring part of the land; the proportionate reduction of consideration left no legitimate grievance. (¶¶ 72, 74, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90)
- Consolidation for convenient hearing did not merge the suits, which retained separate identities. An Order II Rule 2 bar had to be pleaded and satisfactorily established; the Court rejected the contention that it must be applied suo motu regardless of pleading, without needing to determine the bar’s application here. (¶¶ 91, 92, 93)
Result
All appeals dismissed; partial specific-performance decree for 200 square yards at reduced consideration and dismissal of the purchaser’s other claims upheld.