PHOOL CHAND Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAUSHALYA Devi respondent herein inherited property in dispute from her mother. She by agreement dated 2nd June, 1980 agreed to sell 104 Kanals and 12 marlas of land in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. A sum of Rs. 3,000.00 was paid to her as earnest money. The landlady further postulated that the sale deed qua 52 kanals and 6 marlas of land shall be executed on or before 1st June, 1981 and for the remaining land measuring 52 kanals and 6 marlas on or before 31st August, 1981. The agreement further provided that in case the purchaser failed to get the sale deeds executed by the date fixed the agreement shall stand cancelled and the earnest money forfeited. Undisputedly, the sale deed was not executed by Kaushalya Devi in favour of Phool Chand plaintiff either on or before 1st June, 1981 or 31st August, 1981. Mutation of inheritance in favour of Kaushalya Devi was sanctioned on 14th June, 1986. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit for specific performance of agreement on 10th March, 1987. Defendant-Kaushalya Devi resisted the suit and during the pendency of the. suit, she sold the property in question in favour of Vandna and Dhan Devi defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit is barred by time. Trial Court relying on the fact that mutation had been sanctioned on 14th June, 1986, came to the conclusion that the suit filed on 2nd March, 1987 was within limitation and consequently decreed the suit. On appeal, learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the clauses in the agreement provided for registration of sale deeds on 1st June, 1981 and 31st August, 1981 and irrespective of the fact that mutation was sanctioned on 14th June, 1986, the earlier clauses in the agreement were to prevail and, therefore, the period of limitation of three years is to be counted from 31st August, 1981 and not from 14th June, 1986. The appellate Court thus concluded that the suit is barred by time. It consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is in this situation, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

(2.) UPON notice of motion, the defendant-respondents have put in appearance.

(3.) THE agreement in this case was entered into between the parties on 2nd June, 1980 and the present suit, even if it be taken to be within limitation, has been filed on 10th March, 1987 i. e. after a period of about seven years. It is a matter of common knowledge that prices of the land are rising everyday and it was expected of the plaintiff to take steps or to persuade the defendants to get the mutation sanctioned at an early date. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the plaintiff took steps in that behalf to ensure that the mutation is sanctioned at any early date. He awaited for a period of seven years before filing the suit and in this situation, the observations made by the Apex Court in K. S. Vidyanandam and Ors. v. Vairavan, (1997)3 S. C. C. 1 may be read with advantage. It was held by the Supreme Court as under: