SREERAMA CHENGALRAYA NAIDU Vs. K RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for specific performance was passed, directing the defendant to convey the suit-house to the plaintiff after receiving the sum of Rs. 800 from the plaintiff. Unfortunately, no date is fixed in the decree before which the plaintiff was to pay the sum of Rs. 800 to the defendant and get a conveyance from the latter. The plaintiff, the vendee, was in possession of the suit-house and was continuing in possession and did not offer to deposit the amount of consideration or of the stamp-paper to enable the defendant to execute the sale-deed in his favour. Waiting for two years, the defendant filed in I.A. No. No. 374 of 1957 under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that a date might be fixed and the plaintiff be directed to deposit the sale amount of Rs. 800 and to furnish, the necessary non-judicial stamps required for executing the deed and also to bear the registration charges. This was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to fix a date and that the judgment and decree had become final. The plaintiff further alleged that it was open to him at any time within twelve years of the decree to deposit the amount of Rs. 800 and get a conveyance from the defendant. The lower Court overruled this objection and fixed 16th September, 1957,as the date before which the plaintiff had to perfrom his part of the contract.

(2.) It is urged in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to fix a date, as the judgment and decree had become final and that a case like this is not covered under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. It is also argued that the period of limitation available to the plaintiff to execute the decree and obtain a regular sale-deed from the defendant is twelve years, as it has been held in the decision of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chanda Devi v. Natku Singh,A.I.R. 1944 All. 88 that neither Article 181 or 182 of the Limitation Act is applicable to a case like this. But the learned counsel for the petitioner also has very fairly placed before me a decision of the High Court of Rangoon in Ko Ba Chit and others v. Ko Than Daing, A.I.R. 1927 Rang. 311. The learned Judges therein held that though a date was not originally fixed before which the vendee had to deposit the price into Court in a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell, it is only an accidental omission, and that the Court had jurisdiction to fix a date subsequently under section 152, Civil Procedure Code. In view of the latter decision, I am clearly of opinion that the lower Court has jurisdiction under section 152, Civil Procedure Code, to fix a date for the performance of the contract by the plaintiff, though the application was filed under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to decide whether the period of limitation is three years under Articles 181 and 182 of the Limitation Act, or twelve years, as contended for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) It follows that this revision has to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner requests that further time may be given to enable his client to deposit the amount as per the order of the lower Court. Time is extended by two months from today.