Legal provisions involved: Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for enforcing contracts through specific performance) and civil limitation laws, Limitation Act Article 54.
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts
The case was about a property with a school building. After the death of the owner, the property was shared among his nine children. The plaintiff bought most of the property from the other heirs, but one heir (the defendant) refused to transfer her 1/11th share. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in 2013. The lower courts rejected it, saying he was not fully ready to complete the purchase and that the suit was filed too late.
Key legal points
Limitation Act Article 54
Issues raised
Whether the plaintiff was truly ready and willing to buy the defendant’s share and whether the suit was filed on time.
Arguments of the case
The plaintiff said he had paid the remaining amount, which was accepted by other co-owners, showing his readiness. The defendant claimed the suit was delayed and the plaintiff was not fully prepared.
Judgement
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff had paid the full amount and was ready to complete the sale. The suit was filed on time. The court ordered the defendant to transfer her 1/11th share of the property to the plaintiff.
Click here to VIEW the full judgment.
