If time limit has been fixed for deposit balance consideration.If the Plaintiff has not deposit the balance amount within the period .He can apply for extension of time

Citation

CDJ 2014 SC 100

Rajinder Kumar and others vs Shri Kuldeep Singh and others

Head note

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 58 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 2 (2), Section 20, Section 28 - Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2007 - Lessee agreement – Payment of earnest money - non-delivery of possession - suit for specific performance of agreement - Deceased was the perpetual lessee of property and his legal heirs/plaintiffs claimed 1/24th share each in suit property – appellants/plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell of immovable property with respondent for a total sum out of which consideration was paid as earnest money and possession of suit property was handed over to him - balance amount was to be paid by respondent on execution and registration of sale deed and delivery of possession - Petitioner claims that he is son of deceased and at the time of agreement to sell, he was a minor  and sought declaration that the agreement for sale was illegal as he was not a party to it - said suit was dismissed - respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against legal heirs suit was decreed ex parte and appeal was also dismissed - appellants filed an application under Section 28 of Act, 1963 for rescission of agreement, which was dismissed by Single Judge – Hence instant appeal

Issue is Whether application for rescission was  properly decided by courts below and whether the plaintiff should be entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement

Court held - Court view that discretion to direct specific performance of an agreement and that too after elapse of a long period of time, undoubtedly, has to be exercised on sound, reasonable, rational and acceptable principles - Trial court should have passed an equitable order while considering application for rescission - Having regard to the fact that the decree was passed, court feel that it would be unjust and unfair to relegate parties to trial court at this distance of time - It was open to plaintiff, to file an application, rather he ought to have filed an application in court for appropriate direction with regard to payment of purchase money and for other procedural formalities - It is also ordered that in case plaintiff should deposit an amount to be paid to vendors within period - court see that plaintiff/purchaser had made an attempt, though belatedly, for getting obligations performed even at his expense - In the event of purchaser depositing amount, execution proceedings shall be finalized within a period - discretion to direct specific performance of an agreement and that too after elapse of a long period of time, undoubtedly, has to be exercised on sound, reasonable, rational and acceptable principles - Appeals disposed of.

Para 40, 45

Cases Referred:
Henty v. Schroder, 12 Ch.D. 666.
Hungerford Investment Trust Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) v. Haridas Mundhra, (1972) 3 SCC 684.
Mahommadalli Sahib v. Abdul Khadir Saheb, (1930) MLJ Vol. 59, 351.
Narinderjit Singh v. North Star Estate Promoters Ltd., 2012 (3) RCR(Civil) 168, 2012 (3) RAJ 84, (2012)  5 SCC 712.
Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd., 2003 (2) RCR(Civil) 765, (2002) 8 SCC 146.
P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy v. M.K. Bhagyalakshmi, 2007 (2) RCR(Civil) 290, 2007 (2) RAJ 82, (2007) 10 SCC 231.
Satya Jain (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) Through Lrs., 2013 (1) RCR(Civil) 369, 2012 (6) RAJ 377, (2013) 8 SCC 131.
Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 388.

Comparative Citations:
2014 AIR(SCW) 1121, 2014 (2) CTC 93, 2014 (1) RCR(Civil) 980, 2014 (2) RAJ 31, 2014 AIR(SC) 1155, 2014 (2) LW 540, 2014 (2) SLT 262, 2014 (3) SCJ 292, 2014 (2) MLJ 496, 2014 (3) CalHN 162, 2014 (2) KCCR 127 (SN),