Limitation For Specific Performance Suit Runs From Date When Plaintiff Had Notice Of Refusal When No Date Is Fixed For Performance : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while dismissing a suit, arising from an Agreement to Sell, noted that while the ATS was dated 31.07.1975, the suit was filed by the respondent named Anjuman on 01.01.1981. Further, the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is 3 years ‘from the date fixed for performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused.’ It was also observed that, in the pleadings of the plaint, even after five and a half years, there was no averment that the respondent was ready and willing to perform its obligations under the ATS and pay the balance/remaining amount. It is important to note that Clause 4 stipulated that in case the appellants did not apply for permission within the stipulated time ‘or’ after getting permission, did not inform the respondents and get the deed executed in favour of either the respondents or anyone of their choice then the respondents would have the right to get the sale of the property in question executed in their favour through the Court, and also take possession through the Court. In this backdrop, the Court opined that a conjoint and harmonious reading of the relevant Clauses clearly indicated that the onus was on the appellants to apply within 8 days for permission and upon the permission being received, to intimate to the respondents, whereafter the respondents had to get the Sale Deed executed within 15 days. It further also observed that there being no notice given to the appellants by the respondents for five and a half years to indicate the reason why they kept waiting or that despite their willingness to comply with their portion of the obligations under the ATS, the appellants had not discharged their obligations under the ATS and why the respondents should not move before the Court for enforcement of the ATS, as contemplated thereunder, coupled with the fact that in the entire plaint, there is not even a whisper with regard to the respondents having ever called upon the appellants or given notice to them that they were ready and willing to pay the balance amount and get the Sale Deed executed view does not aid the respondents.