The Karnataka High Court stated that just a delay is not enough reason to deny specific performance relief.
The Karnataka High Court stated that simply having a delay is not enough reason to deny specific performance relief. This was noted in appeals where the plaintiffs sought specific performance and re-conveyance of property. Justice H.P. Sandesh, in a Single Bench, mentioned that while delays can sometimes justify denying relief, in India, a delay alone is not sufficient since the law sets a limitation period. Advocate M.B. Chandra Chooda represented the appellants, and Advocate G.S. Venkat Subba Rao represented the respondents.
In this case, the plaintiffs claimed a sale agreement was made in 1995 for Rs. 50,000, with Rs. 40,000 paid upfront and the remaining Rs. 10,000 due at registration. A registered sale agreement was signed, with the first defendant’s husband as one of the signers. The second defendant also signed the document, and the husband acted on behalf of their minor children. The plaintiffs filed a suit for reconveyance. The legal representatives were involved in litigation, and the Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.72/2006 but dismissed the suit in O.S.No.104/2006. The court ordered the defendants to complete the sale within two months and transfer possession. Dissatisfied with the outcome, both parties appealed to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC. The First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, leading to the case being brought before the High Court.
The High Court stated that it had already addressed the issue of limitations and confirmed that there was no excessive delay. Although the lawsuit was filed after eleven years, there was no set time for the contract’s performance, and it was acknowledged that both the original executor and the agreement holder had passed away. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs claimed they made a demand for three months before filing the suit, but the defendants refused to sign the sale deed, leading to a legal notice and the lawsuit. The Court found that the argument regarding Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act was not valid. After reviewing the facts and legal questions, the Court saw no error in the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit for reconveyance and to grant specific performance based on the registered sale agreement.
The Court acknowledged the delay but emphasized that time was not critical to the contract. The deaths of the original executor and agreement holder were not disputed, and the case involved the legal representatives of both parties. Therefore, the Court found no mistakes by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court in dismissing the reconveyance suit and granting specific performance as requested. The second appeals lacked merit to overturn the Trial Court’s findings, which were deemed lawful and properly exercised. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title: Chikkamma & Ors. v. Rangaraju & Ors.
