The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment, upholding the dismissal of a suit for specific performance in a land sale dispute. The case involved intricate details surrounding an Agreement of Sale, subsequent actions of the parties involved, and the crucial element of time as a factor in determining contractual obligations.

The dispute originated when Appellants 1, 2, and 3 entered into a registered Agreement of Sale with the Respondents for the sale of a property at Rs.21,000. An advance payment of Rs.3,000 was received, and a six-month timeframe was specified for completing the transaction. However, within this stipulated period, Appellants 1, 2 & 3 executed a separate Sale Deed with Appellant 7 for the same property at a higher price of Rs.22,000. This action led to the issuance of a Notice by the Respondents, urging adherence to the original Agreement.

Subsequently, the Respondents initiated legal action, resulting in the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court. Undeterred, the Respondents appealed, and the First Appellate Court ruled in their favor, a decision that was later upheld by the High Court.

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah delved into the crux of the matter, focusing on the sustainability of the impugned judgment. The primary contention revolved around whether the Agreement specified a fixed timeframe for the full payment by the Respondents. The Court noted that the Agreement clearly outlined a six-month period for the completion of the transaction, with the Respondents obligated to pay the balance amount within this timeframe.

The Court observed that the Respondents failed to fulfill their contractual obligation within the stipulated time frame, having paid only Rs.7,000 within the specified six months. Even if the late payment was acknowledged, the Court maintained that the remedy for the appellants was recovery with damages, not a suit for specific relief.

Another noteworthy point was the absence of any relief sought by Appellant no.7 for the cancellation of the Sale Deed in his favor. The Court emphasized that a suit for specific performance concerning the same property was not maintainable. Additionally, the delay in issuing the Legal Notice by the Respondents further weakened their case.

Case: Alagammal And Ors. v Ganesan And Anr.,

CIVIL APPEAL No.8185 OF 2009.