SREENARAYANAN Vs. HUZAIN, S/O. MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for on 17.1.2000. A period of one month was fixed therein to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand only). The defendant challenged the decree in appeal before this Court. It took nine long years for the appeal to be disposed of. The appeal-A.S. No. 174/2001 - was finally dismissed on 14.1.2010. The decree holder was therefore at liberty to pay the balance sale consideration within one month from the appellate decree. This is because the trial court decree had merged with the appellate decree. The time for deposit of the balance sale consideration thus expired on 14.2.2010. But then the decree holder had filed an application for extension of time on 10.3.2008 itself. The said application was allowed on 26.10.2010 and the balance sale consideration deposited within five days therefrom on 1.11.2010.

(2.) The judgment debtor opposed the application for extension of time and contended that the decree for specific performance is liable to be rescinded. A similar defence was taken in the application filed on the original side for execution of the sale deed. A separate application for rescinding the decree is not necessary as held in V.S.P. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. Alagappan and another, Respondents, 1999 AIR(SC) 918. But the question remains as to whether the decree for specific performance lawfully passed is liable to be rescinded.

(3.) The decree holder had filed I.A. No. 1198/2008 for extension of time to make the deposit on 10.3.2008 itself. That was filed at a time when A.S. No. 174/2001 was still pending on the file of this Court. I.A. No. 1198/2008 was allowed only on 26.10.2010. The decree holder paid the balance sale consideration on 1.11.2010 itself. It could thus be seen that there is no inordinate delay in making the deposit of the balance sale consideration.