In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decrees dismissing a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell 1/3rd share of jointly held land before partition was effected, due to limitation bar.
The appeal was dismissed. The impugned judgment and decrees were maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82001
Court No. - 4
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 230 of 2024
Appellant :- Smt. Urmila Respondent :- Rameswar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rinku Verma
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
appellant, I have perused the documents placed on record.
date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused. Thus, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of notice dated 21.06.2004 when the appellant came to know that the party has refused to perform. Even otherwise if the limitation to file suit could have started after three years of the agreement for sale dated 18.08.2003 as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, it also expired on 17.08.2006. Thereafter, three years period on 17.07.2009 but the second notice was given on 27.10.2009 and the suit was filed on 16.11.2009, therefore also the suit was beyond the period of limitation. However, the contention is misconceived and not tenable because the sale deed was to be executed within three years, therefore, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date fixed for performance.Thus, the suit filed by the appellant was beyond limitation in any case.
"49. Mere reading of Article 54 of the Limitation Act would show that if the date is fixed for performance of the agreement, then non-compliance of the agreement on the date would give a cause of action to file suit for specific performance within three years from the date so fixed. However, when no such date is fixed, limitation of three years to file a suit for specific performance would begin when the plaintiff has noticed that the defendant has refused the performance of the agreement."
sale of 1/3rd portion of Araji Khasara No. 2474, without disclosing the partition between the co-tenure holders of the said plot. It is settled in law that no co-tenureholder can sell or part with any part of the land, in which there are co-tenure holders, without partition and determination of his share and portion because till partition all co-tenureholders are deemed to be in possession on every portion of land jointly, therefore, the
sale deed could not have been executed, therefore, parties also could not have entered into agreement for sale. It has also not been shown that partition has been made.
Order Date :- 9.12.2024 Raj
Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation and defective due to lack of partition among co-tenure holders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rathnavathi and another vs. Kavita GanashamdasReferred¶14
Rathnavathi and another vs. Kavita Ganashamdas; 2014 AIR SCW 6288 · Who else cites this
Smt. Urmila
Rameswar And Another
Rajnish Kumar
Raj Nigam
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
