Ajaib
Singh Vs. Gurbax Singh & Ors [1987] INSC 337 (17 November 1987)
MUKHARJI,
SABYASACHI (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) OZA, G.L. (J)
CITATION:
1988 SCR (1)1099 1988 SCC (1) 143 JT 1987 (4) 516 1987 SCALE (2)1045
ACT:
Indian
Contract Act, 1872: Agreement of sale-Specific performance of-Major portion of
sale price paid by buyer- Possession of property with buyer in part performance
of agreement-Documents of title not executed-Limitation bar pleaded-Held High
Court erred in denying specific performance on account of hardship without
deciding whether claim was barred by limitation.
HEADNOTE:
%
Under an agreement of sale entered into by respondents the appellant had paid
the major portion of the agreed price long time ago and the balance thereof
that was to be paid at the time of execution of the documents was a sum of Rs.
75 only. Possession of the premises was with the appellant for all these years
in part performance of the agreement.
Upon
failure of the respondents to execute documents of title, the appellant sought
specific performance of the agreement. The respondents canvassed the question
of limitation before the High Court. The High Court, however, without deciding
that question took the view that due to passage of time prices of lands had
gone up sky high and it would be unjust to enforce the agreement of sale.
Allowing
the appeal by special leave, ^
HELD:
The High Court exercised discretion on wrong principles. Without deciding the
question whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation or not it
proceeded to refuse to grant the relief on the ground that there has been good
deal of delay and the parties would suffer if specific performance of the
agreement was granted.
This
principle was not applicable to the facts of the case and the exercise of
discretion was not proper. The matter remanded to the High Court for decision
in merits. [1100G; E; 1101B] Madamsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yellogi Rao &
Ors., [1965] 2 SCR 221; Dr. Jiwan Lal & Ors. v. Brij Mohan Mehra &
Anr., [1973] 2 SCR 230 and Debendra Nath Mandal v. Sakhilal Kar & Ors., AIR
1950 Calcutta 526, referred to. 1100
Civil
Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 3066 of 1987.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.1986 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
R.S.A. No. 163 of 1978.
Mala
Ram Ghana and Dalveer Bhandari for the Appellant. M.S. Gujral and Dr. Meera
Aggarwal for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave
granted.
The
High Court in its judgment and order dated 9th July, 1986, has observed that
the question of limitation has been canvassed before the High Court. The High
Court expressed the view that there was a lot of conflict between the various
High Courts on the interpretation of Article 54 of the Limitation Act which
governed the point of limitation. The High Court, however, did not decide this
question and expressed the view that due to passage of time prices of lands had
gone up sky-high and it would be unjust to enforce the agreement of sale
entered into. In other words, it appears that without deciding the question
whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation or not, the High
Court exercised its discretion in refusing to grant the relief on the ground
that there has been good deal of delay and the parties would suffer if specific
performance of the agreement was granted. It appears from the facts that in
this case the major portion of the agreed price had been paid long time ago and
the balance thereof was to be paid at the time of execution of the documents
was a sum of Rs. 75 only. It further appears that possession of the premises
was with the appellant for all these years in part performance of the
agreement. In those circumstances, the principle upon which the High Court
refused to exercise its discretion, in our opinion, was not applicable and such
discretion was not proper. The High Court exercised discretion on wrong
principles. See in this connection Madamsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yellogi Rao
& Two others, [1965] 2 SCR 221; Dr. Jiwan Lal & Ors. v. Brij Mohan
Mehra & Another, [1973] 2 SCR 230 and see also the observation in Debendra
Nath Mandal v. Sakhilal Kar & Ors., AIR 1950 Calcutta 526 In that view of
the matter, we cannot sustain the exercise of discretion in the manner done by
the High Court.
This,
however, does 1101 not decide the matter because the High Court declined to go
into the facts and decide the question of limitation on merits, the High Court
took the view in exercise of its discretion. Since we are not sustaining the
High Court's exercise of discretion hence the order and the Judgment of the
High Court are set aside but the matter is remanded to the High Court for its
decision on the merits. The matter should be disposed of by the High Court as
early as possible. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
P.S.S.
Appeal allowed.
Back