In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court quashed a specific performance suit filed in 1999, seeking enforcement of a 1986 sale agreement. Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vikram Nath opined that the aggrieved party’s delay of 13 years before initiating legal action was a critical factor in their decision.
The case revolved around a 1986 agreement to sell three houses, with the sale deed contingent on obtaining permission from the Ceiling Department. The total sale consideration was Rs. 55,000, including an earnest money payment of Rs. 5,000. The respondents claimed possession of the houses and filed a suit for specific performance, which was initially decreed and upheld through multiple appeals.
The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that two of the houses had already been registered in the appellant’s name before the suit was filed in 1999. The Court questioned why the vendee had waited for over a decade, asserting that remedial measures should have been pursued promptly.
Despite the appellant’s argument that no permission was required from the Ceiling Department for registration, the Court noted the lack of refutation by the respondents’ counsel. The Court underscored that even during the registration of two houses, no permission was obtained, and the respondents should have taken timely action instead of waiting indefinitely.
The judgment highlighted the vendee’s inaction during the twelve-year period, considering the minimal earnest money paid. The Court concluded that the suit, filed after the registration of two houses, could not be legally sustained. The judgment and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the respondents’ suit was ultimately dismissed.
This case, identified as Hazari Lal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. Ramesh Kumar & Others, Civil Appeal No. 5315 of 2010, serves as a reminder that time is of the essence in legal matters, and delayed action may impact the outcome of a case.
