Supreme Court Sets Aside Judgment for Delay, Remits Case to High Court for Fresh Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the decree for specific performance of an agreement, citing a significant delay in the delivery of judgment. The Court set aside the judgment and remitted the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision within six months. Respondent No. 1, in possession of the property, was allowed to continue under certain conditions, ensuring the appellants' interest in the property was protected. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution by the High Court.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against decree for specific performance of agreement, delay in delivery of judgment, interim relief, possession of property.

Decree for specific performance of agreement: The defendant-appellants appealed against the judgment of the Madras High Court affirming the decree for specific performance of an agreement entered into by respondent No. 2 for transfer of his life interest in the property, subsequently transferred to the appellants for consideration. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, which was upheld by the High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Delay in delivery of judgment: The Attorney General for the appellants argued that the judgment was delivered nearly five years after the conclusion of the appeal hearing, citing a case precedent. While acknowledging the concern raised by the long delay in judgment delivery, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, remitting it back to the High Court for a fresh decision within six months to avoid unnecessary speculations and ensure timely justice.

Interim relief and possession of property: Respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favor of respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the appeal, leading to respondent No. 1 being in possession of the property. The Court ordered that respondent No. 1, being the lawful owner until the decree remains intact, can continue in possession, with the condition that no third-party rights are created, and the rent/income received is deposited in the High Court, subject to the appeal decision. The interest of the appellants in the property was also to be protected during this period.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and all related matters were disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of the case by the High Court.

---