Substantial compliance with statutory notice and continuing breach for limitation sustained specific performance relief and conveyance directions.
A statutory transfer transaction arising under the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 attracted the pre-suit notice requirement under Section 156, but substantial compliance was sufficient because the notice conveyed the grievance and relief sought, so the suit was not barred. Where the agreement for sale fixed no time for performance, the defendant's failure to execute the conveyance and deliver possession was treated as a continuing breach, and Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied; the claim was therefore within time. The Court granted specific performance by directing execution and registration of the conveyance, while leaving the issue of actual physical possession open for report and further orders.
Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred for non-compliance with the notice requirement under Section 156 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance and consequential direction for execution of conveyance and ascertainment of physical possession.
Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred for non-compliance with the notice requirement under Section 156 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911.
Analysis: The agreement for sale arose out of an offer made under Section 81 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, and the action of the Board was treated as an act purporting to be done under that Act. The notice requirement under Section 156 was therefore applicable. The notice served before institution of the suit was held to convey the grievance and the relief sought, and strict compliance was not insisted upon where substantial compliance was established.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred for want of notice and the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The agreement did not stipulate a fixed time for performance. The Court treated the defendant's failure to execute the conveyance and deliver possession as a continuing breach, and held that Article 55 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 applied. In the absence of an express refusal to perform, the claim was held to be within time.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation and the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance and consequential direction for execution of conveyance and ascertainment of physical possession.
Analysis: On the defendant's concession that conveyance could be executed if the suit was otherwise maintainable, the Court directed execution and registration of the conveyance within three months from presentation of the draft deed. Since there was a dispute regarding actual physical possession, a Special Officer was appointed to inspect the properties and report on possession and occupancy status.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was granted relief for execution and registration of conveyance, and the question of physical possession was kept open for report and further orders.
Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the maintainability of the suit on notice and limitation grounds, granted substantive relief for conveyance, and left the question of physical possession to be determined on the Special Officer's report.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory transfer transaction arises under the Act, pre-suit notice may be satisfied by substantial compliance, and in an agreement for sale without a fixed time for performance, failure to perform may constitute a continuing breach for limitation purposes.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
