Limitation and readiness for specific performance defeated the claim, but restitutionary monetary relief was enhanced.

Where a sale agreement fixed a date for execution, limitation under Article 54 ran from that date, and pending permission proceedings did not extend time; the suit was therefore barred by limitation. The plaintiffs also failed to prove the continuous readiness and willingness required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, because they did not comply with instalment and related contractual obligations and remained inactive for years, so specific performance was refused. Although equitable restitution remained available after refusal of specific performance, the monetary relief awarded by the HC was enhanced in favour of the plaintiffs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and whether the contractual date for performance stood extended. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness to perform the agreement and were entitled to specific performance. (iii) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to monetary restitution in lieu of specific performance.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and whether the contractual date for performance stood extended.

Analysis: A date was fixed in the agreement for execution of the sale deed. Under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation runs from the fixed date where performance is stipulated on a specified date. The pendency of permission proceedings before the Land and Development Office did not, by itself, establish an extension of the agreed date. The plaintiffs also remained silent for about twelve years after the stipulated date, and the court held that the second limb of Article 54 was not attracted on the facts.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be barred by limitation, and the contention that the date for performance stood extended was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness to perform the agreement and were entitled to specific performance.

Analysis: The court applied the settled requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness. The plaintiffs failed to pay the stipulated instalments, did not take steps consistent with the contractual obligations concerning rent, taxes and eviction, and did not act within a reasonable time. The prolonged inaction was treated as abandonment of the agreement.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness and were not entitled to specific performance.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to monetary restitution in lieu of specific performance.

Analysis: Although specific performance was refused, the court considered the equities arising from the long lapse of time and the amount paid by the plaintiffs decades earlier. The court therefore found that the amount granted by the High Court required enhancement.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were held entitled to enhanced monetary relief of Rs. 2,00,00,000 instead of the lesser refund directed by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was declined, but the monetary relief was substantially increased in favour of the plaintiffs, and the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract for sale fixes a date for performance, limitation under Article 54 runs from that date, and prolonged inaction may also defeat a claim for specific performance notwithstanding ancillary permission proceedings; readiness and willingness must be continuously established to obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance.

---