Specific performance of agreement _ Reasonable period _ Some recent case laws

Suit for specific performance _ Period of one year was agreed for executing the sale deed _ Though it was necessary for the defendant to obtain permission from the competent authority but the intention of parties to make time the essence of the agreement is evident _ Agreement further stipulates that if permission is not obtained within period of one year, then the sale deed would be executed within a period of one month from obtaining such permission _ Subsequent stipulation in the agreement does not prescribe the outer limit for obtaining such permission _ Permission was required to be obtained within reasonable time which can be taken to be three years _ Even assumed that after reasonable period of three years from 21-4-1989 which is 21-4-1992 there was refusal on the part of the defendant, in terms of Article 54 of Limitation Act the suit could have been filed within three years, that is till 20-4-1995 _ Suit was filed on 13-6-2001 after almost six years _ Suit as filed was barred by limitation under Article 54 of Limitation Act. (See 2015 (6) LJSOFT 170)

Suit for specific performance _ There is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract _ Though no time is fixed for performance of contract but it does not mean that the agreement stipulated indefinite period for performance of contract _ Contract to be performed within reasonable time but the question "what is a reasonable time", is, in each particular case, a question of fact. (See 2015 (3) LJSOFT 136)

Suit for specific performance of contract _ Though time is not the essence of contract in respect of sale of immovable property but in so far as urban properties are concerned, the contract should be concluded within a reasonable time. (See 2011 (11) LJSOFT 135)

Suit for specific performance of contract _ Appellant did not move the court in reasonable time _ Vendor had already died _ When the suit was filed there were minor children _ Property was ancestral property and the appellant/ plaintiff ought to have shown that there was legal necessity for sale of the property _ Since no question of limitation was raised by the Court below it is not possible to enter into that question in Second Appeal _ However it would not be equitable to allow the specific performance _ Specific performance need not be granted merely it is lawful to do so _ Appeal allowed to the extent of refund of money and as a consequential relief the respondents would be entitled to get back possession of the house property. (See 2009 (12) LJSOFT 207)

Suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale _ No time specified for performance of promise but the contract must be performed within a reasonable time _ What is the reasonable time is to be seen in Article 54 of Limitation Act _ For specific performance of contract three years time is prescribed under the said Article and, therefore, reasonable time means three years _ Trial Court rightly held that the suit was time barred as the same was not filed within reasonable time. (See 2008 (10) LJSOFT 76)

Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale _ No date for performance fixed in the agreement _ Suit could be held to be barred by limitation only on a finding that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance by the defendants and that the plaintiffs approached the court beyond three years of the date of notice _ Question of limitation could be dealt with only after evidence is taken and not as a preliminary issue. (See 2006 (4) LJSOFT (SC) 24)