Limitation and specific performance: absence from India excludes time, and delay or price rise alone does not defeat relief.

Time during which a defendant is absent from India must be excluded in computing limitation, so the specific performance suit was treated as filed within time. The purchaser was held not to be in breach, because the contract required any further payment, if demanded, to be made to the Income Tax authorities and not directly to the vendor; readiness and willingness were established on the evidence, and no implied term could be added contrary to the clear contract. Delay and rise in property value alone were insufficient to deny relief, and specific performance was granted subject to market-price determination as directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation by reason of the defendant's absence from India; (ii) whether the purchaser was in breach of the agreement or lacked readiness and willingness to perform; (iii) whether specific performance should be refused on the ground of delay and escalation in property value.

Issue (i): whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation by reason of the defendant's absence from India;

Analysis: The period during which the defendant was absent from India was required to be excluded in computing limitation. The corresponding rule under the earlier limitation law had already been construed to mean that absence from India, whenever the cause of action arose, attracts exclusion of time. Applying that principle to the proved periods of absence, the suit fell within time.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): whether the purchaser was in breach of the agreement or lacked readiness and willingness to perform;

Analysis: The agreement required any further payment, if desired by the vendor, to be made to the Income Tax authorities and not directly to the vendor. The vendor's demand for direct payment found no support in the contract. The invocation of business efficacy to add such an obligation was unwarranted because the contract was clear and complete on this aspect. On the evidence, the purchaser remained ready and willing to perform his contractual obligation.

Conclusion: The purchaser was not in breach and remained ready and willing to perform.

Issue (iii): whether specific performance should be refused on the ground of delay and escalation in property value;

Analysis: Mere efflux of time and increase in market value do not by themselves justify denial of specific performance. Discretion under the specific relief statute must be exercised on principles of fairness and reasonableness. As the delay was not attributable to the purchasers, refusal of relief would unfairly penalise them. The Court therefore interfered with the appellate decree and directed specific performance, coupled with payment at the market price to be assessed by the trial court.

Conclusion: Specific performance was granted.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's reversal was set aside and the suit was decreed for specific performance, with the consideration to be determined on the basis directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Time during which a defendant is absent from India must be excluded in computing limitation, and specific performance cannot be denied merely because of delay or rise in property value where the claimant has remained ready and willing and the contract does not justify adding a contrary obligation by implication.

---