This appeal challenged a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of property. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the suit was not barred by limitation due to a valid acknowledgment of liability and dismissed the appeal against the respondents.
Appeal dismissed; decree affirmed; parties to bear respective costs.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on : 04/02/2021
Order Delivered on: 10/03/2021
FA No. 03 of 1996
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondents
2
For Appellants : Shri N.K. Malviya, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Vipin Punjabi, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Order
10 /03/2021
3
registered sale deed in favour of Abdul Sattar. It was alleged that late Abdul Sattar was always willing and ready to perform his part of the agreement but the appellant refused to execute the sale deed. Further case is that after the death of Abdul Sattar, on 15.06.1990, the appellants again received Rs.40,000/- towards the same agreement and, thereafter, did not execute the sale deed. Therefore, the suit for specific performance of the contract had been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.
4
and directed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs after receiving the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-, failing which the Court shall execute the decree on payment of Rs.40,000/- by the respondents/plaintiffs. Hence, this appeal by the appellants/defendants.
5
document (Ex.P/1) by over writing. The agreement was executed on 30.10.1986 and the time given in the agreement for payment of balance amount i.e. three months expires on 31.01.1987, therefore, the period of limitation for filing the suit was only till 30.01.1990 but till that date neither Abdul Sattar nor any respondents took any step for filing the suit even a single notice was not given to the appellant for execution of the sale deed. He also submits that the learned trial Court wrongly dealt with Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Ex.P/2 which is acknowledgment of subsequent payment of Rs.40,000/- is wholly inconsequential for the reason that, according to Ex.P/2, the last date for filing the Civil Suit was 14.06.1990 and the suit was filed on the same day but Court fees were not paid and the same was paid on 17.06.1990, but the trial Court has not passed any order for condonation of delay in payment of Court fees, meaning thereby the properly constituted plaint was filed on 17.06.1990, thus, the suit was again time barred. In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umabai and another Vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (dead) by Lrs. And another 1 and Rathnavathi 2 and another Vs. Kavit Ganashamdas .
1 (2005) 6 SCC 243
2 (2015) 5 SCC 223
6
Court below has not committed any error of law and has rightly decreed the suit.
In this context, the learned trial Court also framed issue No.5, which is reproduced herein below:-
“D;k oknhx.k dk ;g okn vof/k ckg; gS \”
Defendant Nathuram Gupta (died), in his written statement, has admitted his signature and execution of an agreement dated 31.10.1986 (Ex.P/1). He has also admitted that on 15.06.1990, he received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from Abdul Sattar's son but he denied this transaction as acknowledgment of earlier agreement dated 31.10.1986. Ex.P/2 is acknowledgment of Rs.40,000/-, signed by defendant Nathuram Gupta (died), which reads thus:-
“vkt fnukad 15-06-1990 dks Lo- Jh vCnqy lRrkj ds iq= Jh gqlSu ls 40000@& pkyhl gtkj #i;k izkIr fd;k] edku jftLVªh ds le; bl jde dks jftLVªh jde esa eqtjk dj nqaxkA edku jftLVªh ds laca/k esa dksbZ u;k ,xzhesaV dher oxSjg dk ugha gqvk gSA ”
7
execution of acknowledgment (Ex.P/2) which was reduced to writing on 15.06.1990. The suit was filed on 14.06.1993 within a period of three years from the date of execution of acknowledgment (Ex.P/2) dated 15.06.1990, which is within the prescribed time limit. The trial Court also recorded its finding with regard to payment of Court fees stating that it does not make any difference that the Court fees was not paid on 14.06.1993, but by submitting an application on 14.06.1993, the Court fees has been paid by the plaintiffs on 17.06.1993 i.e. the next date, which the Court has accepted.
8
no new agreement with regard to registry of house and price etc. has been executed. Defendant Nathuram Gupta (DW/1), in para 4 of his Court statement, contended that when Ex.P/2 i.e. acknowledgment was reduced to writing, he said that on that day no discussion was done with regard to consideration amount of suit property. Plaintiff has also agreed that if the deal is not finalized, then defendant shall refund the amount. In para 5, he also stated that Mohd. Hussain has paid Rs.40,000/- and acknowledgment thereof was reduced to writing vide Ex.P/2. He had no conversation with Mohd. Hussain before or after writing the acknowledgment. In para 6, he also states that he told the defendant several times to settle the deal and get the sale deed registered, but he did not make any effort. He has also stated that on being asked by advocate Fazli sahab, he wrote the receipt. In agreement (Ex.P/1) also, it is settled between the parties, which reads thus:-
“ ;g fd fodz; dh 'ks”k jkf'k eq0 80]000@& #i;k rhu ekg ds vUnj f}rh; i{k vCnwy lRrkj }kjk izFke i{k uRFkqjke xqIrk dks iVkus ij izFke i{k }kjk f}rh; i{k ds gd esa fodz; i= ¼iathd`r½ fu”ikfnr dj fn;k tkosxkA cdk;k jkf'k izFke i{k }kjk f}rh; i{k dks 31-10-87 rd vko';d #i ls iVk tkosxh] ;fn mDr fnukad rd f}rh; i{k }kjk cdk;k jkf'k vnk u dh xbZ rks f}rh; i{k izFke i{k ds gd esa djkjukekuqlkj fodz; i= fu”ikfnr djus ikcan ugha jgsxk rFkk ,slh fLFkfr esa fodz; i= fu”ikfnr djuk vFkok u djuk mldh bPNk ij fuHkZj gksxk ijUrq ,slh fLFkfr es is'kxh jde eq0 20]000@& # tks f}rh; i{k us izFke i{k ls vkt uxn gkfly dh gS mls f}rh; i{k }kjk izFke i{k dks fodz; i= fu”ikfnr u gksus ij rhu ekg ds vUnj okil dj fn;k tk;sxkA
9
to Abdul Sattar and he received additional Rs.40,000/- from his son Mohd. Sattar.
“8. We may add that in the light of the acknowledgement of their liability by the defendants in 1978, it is not open to them now to deny to make payment of the amount due to the Bank on the ground that higher rate of interest could not be charged. It is clear from the judgment of this Court in Hiralal V. Badkulal (AIR 1953 SC 225 : 1953 SCR 758) that an unqualified acknowledgement of liability as in the present case by a party not only saves the period of limitation but also gives a cause of action to the plaintiff to base its claim.”
“15. The statement providing foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. The words used in the acknowledgement must indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor. The intention to attempt such jural relationship must be apparent. However, such intention can be inferred by implication from the
4 (2004) 12 SCC 360
3 (2003) 2 SCC 15
10
nature of the admission and need not be expressed in words. A clear statement containing acknowledgement of liability can imply the intention to admit jural relationship of debtor and creditor. Though oral evidence in lieu of or making a departure from the statement sought to be relied on as acknowledgement is excluded but surrounding circumstances can always be considered. Courts generally lean in favour of a liberal construction of such statements though an acknowledgement shall not be inferred where there is no admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning. (See Shapoor Freedom Mazda V. Durga Prosad Chamaria [AIR 1961 SC 1236] and Lakshmirattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. V. Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd [(1971) 1 SCC 67 : (1971) 2 SCR 623] ) So long as the statement amounts to an admission, acknowledging the jural relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be found due from the person making the admission or that on an account being taken something may be found due and payable to the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom the statement is made.”
11
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Pekde
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.
Whether the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement.
Whether the acknowledgment (Ex.P/2) validly revived the cause of action.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umabai and another Vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba ChavanReferred¶36
Umabai and another Vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (dead) by Lrs. And another 1 (2005) 6 SCC 243 · Who else cites this
Rathnavathi and another Vs. Kavit GanashamdasReferred¶36
Rathnavathi 2 and another Vs. Kavit Ganashamdas . (2015) 5 SCC 223 · Who else cites this
Syndicate Bank Vs. R. Veeranna and otherExplained¶59
Syndicate Bank Vs. R. Veeranna and other3 (2003) 2 SCC 15 · Who else cites this
Hiralal V. BadkulalExplained¶59
Hiralal V. Badkulal (AIR 1953 SC 225 : 1953 SCR 758) · Who else cites this
Food Corporation of India Vs. Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. And OthersExplained¶62
Food Corporation of India Vs. Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. And Others4 (2004) 12 SCC 360 · Who else cites this
Shapoor Freedom Mazda V. Durga Prosad ChamariaReferred¶66
Shapoor Freedom Mazda V. Durga Prosad Chamaria [AIR 1961 SC 1236] · Who else cites this
Lakshmirattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. V. Aluminium Corpn. of India LtdReferred¶66
Lakshmirattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. V. Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd [(1971) 1 SCC 67 : (1971) 2 SCR 623] · Who else cites this
Omprakash Gupta S/o Late Nathuram Gupta
Ramprakash Gupta S/o Late Nathuram Gupta
Prakash Gupta S/o Late Naththuram Gupta
Mohd.Hussain (Died) Through Lrs.
Abdul Gaffar (Died) Through Lrs.
Mohd. Muneer S/o Abdul Sattar
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
